Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Germ Warfare Tests (West Country)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: During the 1960s and 1970s, germ warfare tests were carried out off the west country coast by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. During that period, and indeed as late as 1977, testing took place from Lyme bay to Devonport, involving a cocktail of bacteria, including E. coli 162, B. globigii and serratia marcescens, being pumped into the atmosphere. Those germs were apparently used for their usefulness in simulating a biological attack. The issue has recently come to light because of the release of previously classified documents.
The Western Morning News, and especially its journalist, Mark Townsend, deserve high praise for their pioneering work in bringing the facts to the public's attention and the responsible way in which they have raised the inevitable question of what lasting effects the experiments may have had. Even today, the many people living in the coastline areas where the experiments took place continue to suffer a growing number of unexplained illnesses and medical conditions.
The issue is not party political. My purpose in bringing it before the House is simply to find out exactly what happened, and especially which bacteria were used. I wish to find out why the experiments were conducted in the first place; what safeguards were devised at the time, if any; and what assessments successive Governments have made of the lasting dangers. I believe that those living in the coastline areas deserve specific answers and nothing else will suffice.
Many documents, especially those relating to later incidents of testing in Portland and Devonport, have still not been released. Obviously, we do not know how many documents exist, but the fact that full disclosure has still not taken place must inevitably raise fears and suspicions. At least in Portland and Devonport we have an explanation of sorts of why the experiments took place.
Last year, the former Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Portillo, in a letter to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said that the experiments were
to assess the vulnerability of naval vessels, to determine the hazard arising from a biological attack and to evaluate rapid detection concepts.
The purpose of the earlier Lyme bay experiments is, however, far from clear. In those earlier experiments, it seems that a bacterial brew was pumped into the atmosphere and deliberately aimed inland towards the

coast of west Dorset and east Devon. The extent of spread and penetration was supposedly monitored for up to 10 miles inshore. I had better lay my cards on the table, and concede that a physics with chemistry O-level from 1965 does not equip me to come to a final conclusion, but I wonder how a floating cloud of bacteria could be monitored in that way. Why 10 miles? Why not nine miles or 11 miles? One has only to ask those and similar questions to wonder at what was done.
The possible lasting effects of those actions has not been properly explained. The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency continues to reiterate the theory that the bacteria used will have had no harmful effects, but what is the evidence for that proposition? It is not the agreed position of several of the country's leading independent microbiologists. Professor Richard Lacey of Leeds university, writing on the army's germ warfare simulants, maintains that much evidence points to the conclusion that the type of germs used cannot be labelled harmless.
I do not wish to detain the House at length by going through all the examples that could be cited, but I want to give just one example from Professor Lacey's book. George H. Connell, the assistant to the director of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in America, addressing the United States Senate hearings on biological warfare testing, said in 1977:
There is no such thing as a microorganism that cannot cause trouble.
He continued:
If you get the right concentration at the right place, at the right time, and in the right person, something is going to happen.
Professor Lacey concludes:
none of the four agents that the army admits using over populated areas in simulated biological warfare attacks is harmless.
Indeed, many families who have lived in the area since the experiments took place feel a growing concern that there may be a link between the experiments and their high proportion of health problems. Of the 22 families who grew up in one village—East Lulworth, on the coast of Lyme bay—all the girls have had miscarriages or given birth to children with defects.
One family in particular, that of Noreen and Sidney Hall, has seen an unprecedented number of unexplained illnesses over the past 14 years. Each of the four daughters has had a miscarriage or given birth to a disabled child. Babies have been born with missing limbs, been afflicted with severe learning difficulties, or started life with shrunken brains caused by unexplained illnesses.
Those who served in the ship that was used in the experiments, the Icewhale, also believe that there is a link between the experiments and various mysterious illnesses. Fishermen caught in the cloud of bacteria have complained of the effects of a "tear-gas-like" cloud emitted at the time.
The apparent failure to explain in detail what was done, and the lack of any detail concerning the possible lasting consequences of the experiments, led many people to say that the tests are responsible for a number of debilitating illnesses and birth defects. Whatever the reasons for the tests at the time, I can safely say that it is inconceivable that such experiments would be carried out in such a random way today. People on the south coast were used as human guinea pigs.
If people are to know the possible effects of what they were subjected to, and when and over what period they were subjected to it, the only reasonable course of action


is for the Ministry of Defence to release all the paperwork relating to the incidents. The Government must also carry out a full and public examination to establish once and for all whether there is a causal link between the experiments conducted and the personal medical tragedies that I have mentioned.
Obviously, the present Government are not responsible for the experiments. None the less, it is their responsibility to carry out the fullest investigation into the experiments, so as finally to determine exactly what went on, and what the possible consequences are. If a link is established between the experiments and the unexplained illnesses, the question of compensation will have to be faced.
It will not be sufficient to say that there is no evidence that people have been harmed, simply because at the time it may have been assumed that the whole process was safe. What people need to know is not the assumptions that may have been made 25 and more years ago, but what, in the light of today's knowledge, they may have suffered.
I have deliberately spoken briefly, so as to give other hon. Members the chance to take part. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams, in particular—

Mr. Anthony Steen: Totnes.

Mr. Nicholls: Times change.
I know that my hon. Friend, in particular, has been concerned about the matter, and that he needs to attend a Committee in a few moments. I also want to allow the Minister the necessary time to respond. I am pleased to see that the Minister of State himself has come here to reply to the debate. I hope that he will have been helped by the fact that I provided him with a copy of my speech in advance.
I have not sought to apportion blame. I have set out such facts as are available as briefly and dispassionately as I can. I pass no judgment on the scientific aspects of the matter; indeed, I am not qualified to do so. What I can say is that, finally, once and for all, answers are needed. I should like to think that, when the Minister has responded to the debate, the process of answering the questions that people want answered will be seen to have started today.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I have only a few words to say, chiefly to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) for bringing the matter to the notice of the House. Clearly it concerns us all in the west country. My hon. Friend does a great service to his constituency and to the rest of Devon by raising the matter.
I am glad to say that I cannot endorse some of the cases that my hon. Friend has raised, simply because, fortunately, my experiences have not been the same as his. I have not been advised of any problems in the former South Hams constituency, which is now known as Totnes. All I can say is that the matter will cause the House some concern, and that I feel sure that the Government will investigate it as they should.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on bringing the debate to the House. As a Member who has been actively involved with the problem for more than a year, perhaps I can throw more light on what has happened already, and what we are trying to do about it.
It is important that we give serious consideration to the concerns of our constituents, but also that we do not leave them in an alarmed state, in which all the health problems of the past 30 years will be blamed on the experiments.
I certainly follow my hon. Friend in asking for the release of any information that is still to be released under the 30-year rule—in some cases, the 30 years may not yet be up.
When the matter first became public knowledge, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) tabled a series of questions bringing to the attention of the House the fact that the experiments had taken place. We were told that bacteria that would be totally harmless had been released, to check how bacteria of that nature dispersed around the coastline, and how they might or might not penetrate the defences of Her Majesty's warships.
The immediate reaction in my constituency was dramatic. One of my local papers, the Dorset Evening Echo, to which I pay tribute, sent someone to the Public Records Office to find out as much information as possible. In a series of articles, the paper explained what had been going on. That was the most important development in terms of getting information out to the public.
The local authorities and I approached the then Government and said, "Look, this is an extremely important issue. What are you going to do about explaining to the public what has happened?" With representatives from the county council, from West Dorset district council and from Weymouth and Portland district council, I had an interesting and detailed meeting with the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who explained that the Ministry had examined all the files and was satisfied that no harm had been done to anybody. However, it was strange that such a harmless experiment had been kept so secret.
One interesting development had taken place under a previous Labour Administration. Like other Ministers of the time, Lord Healey said that he knew nothing about the experiments, and that the scientists had never told him what was happening. There is some dispute about that, because there are records within the Ministry of Defence showing that he was being briefed at Porton Down while the experiments were being designed—but there is no record of whether he was briefed on those specific issues.
We are also told that, at the time, an independent committee approved all such experiments, and that those independent scientists said that what was being done was perfectly safe. None the less, in today's climate it would not be possible to do the experiments without telling the public. They concerned not secret materials but the dispersal of bacteria. Not telling people that they were being carried out was reprehensible.
If the public and the health authorities had known what was happening at the time, they could have checked the population to monitor the effects. We understand that no such checks were made, and there is no record of anything


untoward happening at the time. Had checks been made, we could have ensured that not only the Ministry of Defence but the health authorities thought that the experiments were safe.
The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which is now responsible for Porton Down, agreed that, rather than holding a public inquiry—an expensive way of going round in circles—it would mount a detailed exhibition. That was shown in three places in Dorset, to allow the public to examine all the available information and to decide whether they could have been affected. DERA is adamant that it has done nothing that could have given rise to problems.
The exhibition was shown during the summer recess, and various people said that they had a medical condition, that their cattle had died because of E. coli, or that they had all sorts of other problems, but it is difficult to link any such incidents directly to the tests. Nobody is suggesting that, on the morning of a test, or five days afterwards, something suddenly happened. People who have experienced a cluster of problems wonder whether the tests are responsible.
We invited the Dorset health authority to be represented at the exhibition, to reassure the public. Wisely, the authority decided not to do so, because it believes that it should be seen as the guardian of the public interest, and it wants to investigate independently what is going on without being seen as part and parcel of the Government or Ministry of Defence machine.
The most serious allegation is that East Lulworth has had many more birth defects and miscarriages than would normally be expected. I wrote to the Dorset health authority about that; its immediate reaction was to say that it had no record whatever of undue problems in East Lulworth. The family who had experienced particular difficulties decided to conduct a survey. They found that many girls who had been brought up in East Lulworth had married and moved away, spreading the cluster of miscarriages and birth defects further afield, so the health records did not show that East Lulworth had an especial problem.
The health authority assures me that it is using that information and conducting an epidemiological study. That route is much more positive than simply asking the MOD why the people are having problems. East Lulworth is close to a nuclear facility, and even closer to a tank range. I certainly hope that the Minister will assist the health authority to find out whether any substances are emanating from the tank range; after all, we use a lot of nasty materials to fire tank rounds, and within the rounds themselves. Let us ensure that we concentrate on establishing whether there is a link between the tests and the problems.
I have received a helpful letter from Dorset health authority about some letters that I sent on from people with concerns. It says:
I have passed on these letters to the Consultant in Public Health who is investigating the concerns … The health authority became aware of the germ warfare experiments at the same time as the general public and has liaised closely with relevant local authorities as well as with members of the general public who have written in or telephoned the Department of Public Health about specific issues. Mr. Peter Harvey, the Chief Executive of Dorset County Council, has made a file available to the Public Health Department which includes all correspondence received by his Department from the general public detailing their concerns of possible health problems

associated with the germ warfare experiments. The letters cover a very wide range of medical problems and give no indication that there has been any clustering of any particular problem in any given locality within Dorset. The Authority is currently only aware of one cluster of childhood illness in Dorset, and that is the neuroblastoma cluster in the Littlemoor area of Weymouth which is being investigated as part of a national epidemiological study.
During July 1997 a Consultant in Public Health from the Dorset Health Authority, together with a Community Infection Control Nurse, made a visit to DERA and were given a presentation detailing the nature of the germ warfare experiments. This confirmed that the bacteria released over Dorset as part of the experiments were not known to cause illness in man at the time the experiments were conducted. However, one of the bacteria, Serratia marcescens, has been subsequently demonstrated to cause acute illness in people with weak immune systems especially in Intensive Care Unit settings. There is currently no research evidence to link the bacteria which were released with birth defects or any chronic illness such as multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease.
The Communications and Public Relations Department of Dorset Health Authority assisted DERA by providing comments on the final format of the material which they presented at the Roadshows held in Dorset to inform the general public about the experiments. The Authority did not send representatives to attend the Roadshows as it was felt important to maintain a distance between ourselves and the Ministry of Defence in order to demonstrate to the public that the Authority is an independent body. This is important to maintain public confidence in the Authority's ability impartially to investigate public concerns, not just about the germ warfare experiments but also other environmental issues such as electromagnetic radiation from power lines, chemical release from landfill sites and chemical emissions into the air from chemical factories in Dorset.
I want to reassure my constituents that, although the link to the experiments may be tenuous, we are taking the problems seriously.
I wrote to the Minister suggesting that he might have access to files that were not available to a Conservative Government. I was somewhat disappointed—although I do not blame him personally—that his correspondence section sent the letter on to DERA, with which I had already had a long correspondence. I understand from DERA that it has not even received the forwarded correspondence, although it had my letter telling it to ignore it because I was writing to the Minister again.
I hope that the Minister will shed as much light as possible on the matter from the MOD point of view, and that every facility will be provided to the Dorset health authority to help people from East Lulworth. If the problems come from a source other than the biological experiment, we want to know, so that we can take some action. I hope that the MOD will act expeditiously, and give as much help as possible.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I should like to amplify in two respects the remarks made by my hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). I have had considerable correspondence from constituents about the problem, much of which relates specifically to West Dorset, where the recent roadshows and exhibitions were mainly held. I have also had various correspondence from the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence, and I want to thank him for the efforts he made to expand the scope of the roadshows, which were much appreciated in West Dorset.
I understand that some 27 field reports have been prepared. Of those, two are public knowledge so far. I believe—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—


that two or three further reports are to be released roughly a year from now. That leaves more than 20 that are scheduled for release some years from now as they come up to their 30-year rule.
The secrecy of the field reports is generating, perhaps unnecessarily, a disproportionate amount of concern among my constituents, and, judging by the sedentary reactions of my hon. Friends, among theirs. People feel that those reports may contain material which would cast light on the issue, and that they cannot have access to it simply because of the 30-year rule. It may be that the reports contain matters of profound importance to national security which it would be inappropriate to release. Speaking as an amateur, I find it difficult to imagine that items which will be open to inspection a few years from now without compromising national security would compromise it if released now.
I urge the Minister to consider, upon a personal view of those papers, whether there is genuinely a case for retaining them in secrecy for as long as would normally be the practice, or whether, either in whole or in great part, those papers could be released earlier. That would certainly contribute to the reassurance that, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, is urgently needed.
There is inevitably concern that the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments and public authorities, including Dorset health authority are in some conspiracy. Very often, the belief that officialdom is in conspiracy is wholly false. My general supposition is that, when things go wrong, it is usually by mistake rather than by conspiracy.
Nevertheless, there is an understandable fear in this case. I do not believe that it will be resolved until and unless, in addition to the release of the field reports, steps are taken to establish a reputable, calm, dispassionate, scientific view of the matter. That could be achieved by appointing someone who is not an employee of Her Majesty's Government or a lurid, overblown scare raiser—the last thing we need—to review the field reports. It should be an expert who can reassure the public that nothing went wrong, if nothing did go wrong.
Such an expert could investigate in detail whether there were any grounds for supposing that there was a link between the problems experienced and the events to which we have referred this morning. Such an expert could produce a report much faster than a public inquiry or royal commission. He would have the same independence that one expects of such bodies. That is particularly important because, as my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset and for Teignbridge said, increasing numbers of cases brought to the attention of constituency members are now being laid at the door of the experiments.
One farmer's cattle had a severe and unexplained set of problems. On investigation at Porton Down, it turned out that the problems were caused by a severe outbreak of E. coli. I have not the slightest idea whether there was any link between that outbreak and the experiments, but it is inevitable that, in the present climate, in the absence of release of the field reports or an independent investigation of any links, it is widely asserted that such a link exists. That is regrettable if it is not true. If it is true, it needs to be pinned down.
Therefore, I urge the Minister to release the reports and establish an independent expert quickly to review the matter.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on obtaining this Adjournment debate today. I thank The Western Morning News for its sensitive, non-sensational handling of this issue. The speeches by hon. Members this morning have also been non-sensationalist, and that is the way in which the issue should be treated.
It is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt the link between scientific substances known within the scientific community and medical conditions. The public need to be satisfied that the matter has been rigorously investigated, that all available information is freely available, and that nothing has been kept secret.
My attention is particularly drawn to a report from the biological research advisory board, which tested the bacteria on animals before releasing them. According to the report of the 51st meeting of the board, after tests on animals, the board approved
the use of living non-pathogens in trials which might involve exposure of members of the public, subject to rigorous testing of every batch of material in animals.
So it is clear that there was no release into the atmosphere of the agents involved until after they had been tested on animals.
Nevertheless, in one of the field reports from the time, the methodology for toxicity tests on mice is recorded. In one, 20 mice were exposed to a cloud of E. coli cells for five minutes and then observed for seven days after, and the number of survivors recorded. In another, the lungs of mice exposed to a cloud of E. coli were examined for evidence of lesions, but the report failed to mention how many actually survived. That begs the question whether the so-called pre-testing was adequate to enable a judgment to be made that the bacteria should be released into the atmosphere, where they would be likely to come into contact with human beings.
My constituency is in the middle of the test area, between Portland and Plymouth. I was brought up in the area. I do not want anyone to draw any conclusions about that. I never thought that I had been exposed to germ warfare before I read The Western Morning News, and I suspect that many of my constituents thought the same. There is genuine concern among the population of the coastline and those who may have been around at the time. That is why the debate is important, and questions need to be answered.
Why were the experiments carried out? Who approved them, and what conclusions were drawn? Have all health authority records covering people resident along the coast from Portland to Plymouth been investigated to identify and further investigate any cluster of abnormalities? We know that some research has been done into health records in Dorset, but we do not know whether such an investigation has taken place in Devon.
Can the Minister inform us whether similar tests may have taken place in other parts of the country? These things have a habit of coming to light thanks to the vigilance of the press. Unless a similar informant speaks to the press in other areas, we will not know whether


other tests may have taken place. Should we not know? Why did tests take place only in Lyme bay? Perhaps there is a reason for that, which the Minister can give us, or perhaps he can tell us whether other areas were affected.
I look forward to the Minister's replies to my questions. I know that my constituents will be reassured if full information is made available, and there is no suspicion that anything is being hidden.

Mr. Robert Key: If the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—indeed, if any people—have had their health damaged as a result of Ministry of Defence trials, there is absolutely no doubt that every effort should be made to find out what happened. The Ministry of Defence and its agencies have a clear duty to do all they can to allay the fears of those concerned, and to assist the health authorities wherever possible. I have no doubt that they will be keen to do that—it is in their interests, and it is in everyone's interest.
It must be for the Minister to answer the charges laid by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge. We on the Opposition Benches will listen with great interest and care to his detailed explanation, because my hon. Friend's debate raises some fundamental issues.
It is an irony that, as a direct consequence of the increasing openness of the Ministry of Defence under the current Government and under previous Governments, we have seen headlines in regional newspapers such as "End the secrecy on germ war tests" and "Disagreement over dangers of bacteria".
It is not surprising that our constituents have not read the scientific journals describing the work at Porton Down over many years. Aspects of the trial being debated today were first recorded in the scientific press in 1968; but, had it not been for documents released under the 30-year rule and the excellent road shows touring the country explaining the work of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, we would not be debating the issue today.
There must, inevitably and always, be secrecy and confidentiality surrounding our national defence interests—but only when it is genuinely necessary. I know from personal experience that, in respect of Porton Down, the Ministry of Defence always does all it can to be helpful in individual cases of personal health problems, and that records are always made available to general practitioners, wherever records are available and whenever doing so may be helpful.
There have been calls for a public inquiry, but it is hard to know what might be gained, because DERA has already put into the public domain much, if not all, of what there is to know. The agency even released the old black-and-white film of what happened all those years ago on board the ship off Portland.
The records are clear enough about the trials themselves, but explanation and reassurance are needed about the effects on the general public inland. I understand that a former Dorset county medical officer has come forward to say that the situation was monitored at the time, and there was no record of anything abnormal in the population. Let us examine that in more detail—I hope that we can be reassured that no abnormalities were recorded by the health authorities.
At this point, I wish to say a few words about Porton Down itself. With pride, I declare an interest as Member of Parliament for Porton Down. It amazes my constituents that Porton Down is used as a generic term for the two establishments based there. They are also amazed when they are accused of having some complicity in germ warfare.
We are not talking about germ warfare—we all know that this country gave up any aggressive capacity in that respect decades ago; what we are talking about is research and defence. Until 1979, the Ministry of Defence had at Porton Down the Microbiological Research Establishment and the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. In 1979, they were divided: the Department of Health took over what became the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, and the Ministry of Defence retained the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
Speaking as a former member of the Medical Research Council, I believe that it is extremely important that we in this country retain confidence in the scientific community at Porton Down and elsewhere. We are talking not about monsters, determined to do ill and create havoc, but about real people, with real families and normal concerns about everyday life and health issues, who make a huge contribution to the life of our community.
I know that all the staff at both the CBDE and CAMAR operate to the highest ethical standards, and that they are world-class scientists. I am proud of their contribution to science, to the health of the nation and to the world. I am proud of what they have achieved in raising standards of public health around the world through their contribution to research into cancer, AIDS and more common ailments. It is astonishing to me that anyone should question the motives of the scientists at Porton Down.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Although I echo my hon. Friend's tribute to the work at Porton Down and to the good sense of the scientists involved, would he not agree that to carry out perfectly safe experiments but not tell people would not be acceptable today? On that basis, surely we ought to have all the information that would have been released if the experiments of the past 30 years were going on today?

Mr. Key: I am delighted to acknowledge that my hon. Friend has stolen my final lines. Of course he is right—times have changed.
As constituency Member of Parliament for Porton Down, I have received inquiries about this issue and I have pursued them; but, since March, I have had no further representations from the local community, who are those most likely to be affected by any adverse reaction to the work of Porton Down. There is great local confidence in the work of the two establishments there, but I agree that we need to understand far more about why the experiments and trials are conducted in the first place.
The work is conducted primarily in order to protect our service men and women and the platforms or vehicles in which they work—be those helicopters, aircraft, ships, tanks, land rovers, tents or only protective suits.

Mr. Nicholls: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so rudely—it is hard to catch his eye when I am sitting right behind him. For the avoidance of any doubt, I wish


to emphasise that nowhere in my presentation did I criticise his constituents or the workers of Porton Down. I have no reason whatsoever to suspect that the standards applicable at the time were not followed to the hilt.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), I ask only that we should find out what happened. Unless we are about to hear some revelation from the Minister of State, which I suspect is unlikely, I have no criticism to make of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) or of staff at Porton Down.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reassurance, which I know will be noted by the scientific community at the Porton Down establishments and beyond.
We must understand that there are real threats. That fact is supported by the declarations made to the United Nations special commission by Iraq in the matter of its biological weapons programme, and by the use of a chemical weapon on the Tokyo subway shortly afterwards. There is no doubt that the threat exists, so we must understand how chemical and biological agents are dispersed and how they can be detected. That was what the trials we are debating were designed to discover, and the work done all those years ago was of real benefit to us all.
As for the incidents mentioned, I have been reassured by John Chisholm, the chief executive of DERA, who wrote to me on 20 March. He made it absolutely clear that
The majority of these studies involved no release of biological material whatsoever and were conducted using organisms in different environmental conditions.
He also reassured me that
The work in public areas would have been subject to clearance by Ministry of Defence committees, external to the research establishments concerned, before approval was given to go ahead.
He concluded:
I must stress that the simulant substances that were released were harmless organisms commonly found in soil, grassland and hay throughout the United Kingdom and were not judged to present a risk to the general population.
It is of the greatest importance to the protection of service men and the general public that work at the two establishments at Porton Down continues—indeed, in an uncertain and unstable world, there is a strong case for enhancing and expanding the effort put into their work.
I warmly welcome the greater openness that we have seen at those establishments. I recognise that times have changed. The standards that were acceptable 30, 40 and more years ago are not acceptable today, and I am sure that the Government would wish to do all they can to be as open as possible in that respect.
However, we all need to put our minds to greater public education and awareness of what goes on at those establishments and why, and what we are protecting our troops and civilian communities at home for. If we can answer those questions, the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge will be much reassured, and so will everyone else.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): I thank all those who have spoken this morning: the hon. Members for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who has had to go to a Committee meeting, for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), and for Salisbury (Mr. Key). I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge on having the good fortune and good sense to raise such an important issue. Hon. Members have raised this issue in an extremely responsible fashion, without being uncritical. I assure them that I am aware of both the anxieties and the importance which their constituents attach to it.
I shall refer to a number of issues raised by the hon. Member for Teignbridge and others, but if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall refer first to a number of specific issues that were raised by the hon. Member for South Dorset.
The first was about a letter addressed to me, which was apparently diverted. My general rule on those matters is that, when a Member of Parliament writes to me, he is entitled to expect that the Minister will deal with the issue. I have caused inquiries to be made, and can confirm that the letter was received, and erroneously sent on to the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
In view of what the hon. Member for South Dorset said, I shall ensure that the letter receives the attention it deserves at DERA, but he may, as he said, wish to write to me again. This time, we shall see whether Wells Fargo manages to get the mail through to the Minister's office. I shall then personally answer the points that he raises.
The hon. Member for South Dorset then asked about ministerial approval, advice and so on. He is aware that the general convention that applies to all incoming Ministers is that we are not entitled to see the advice proffered by civil servants or others to previous Ministers. I am therefore somewhat restricted, as I cannot gain access to the personal papers.

Mr. Letwin: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Reid: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish this point, it may satisfy his question.
At the time of the trials, the Ministry of Defence was advised on safety by part of the then Government's scientific advisory council, which was called the biological research advisory board—in the context of a Department that loves acronyms, he will be pleased to know that it was called BRAB—and included a range of independent and eminent academics. It is understood that Ministers were aware of the trials. The hon. Member for South Dorset raised that specific point, so I hope that that clears up any ambiguity.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but will he clarify the following point? The previous Minister made it clear that he could not see most of the ministerial advice given to the previous Labour Administration, and one accepts that rule. Given that the previous Minister could see everything that happened under the Conservative Administration—he gave me assurances about what was happening in that respect—can


the Minister return to the previous Labour Government's detailed memorandums, or are those banned from him as well?

Dr. Reid: I shall have that investigated. I understand that I am not entitled to go back to those papers. It is a matter not of party politics but of subsequent consecutive Administrations.

Mr. Alan Clark: It is to protect civil servants.

Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, it is to protect civil servants, and the impartiality of their advice depends on such protection. If it did not exist, the advice given might be mitigated by a fear of future impingement on that confidentiality.

Mr. Alan Clark: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Reid: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who has an esteemed past as a Defence Minister.

Mr. Clark: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way, particularly as I have only just walked into this debate, although I listened to some of the earlier speeches.
Can the Minister confirm that documents will come into the public domain under the 30-year rule? That is a rolling process, and we hope that any advice tendered to his predecessors will soon be available for public scrutiny.

Dr. Reid: Yes, I can confirm that. I shall cover that general point in my speech, but at this stage I was dealing with the specific questions asked by the hon. Member for South Dorset. I thought that I was being specific enough by telling him, to clear up any ambiguities, that I understand that previous Ministers were aware of the trials.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The Minister knows that the noble Lord, Lord Healey has written to the Cabinet Secretary asking that the civil service look again at his past papers and advise him on whether he had been briefed. He denies that he was briefed about those tests, and says that he knew nothing about them. That gives rise to concern.
If the scientists did not tell the Minister, my constituents want to know what they had to hide. The Minister says that Lord Healey had been told about the trials. The House needs to know what was going on. We are more reassured if we know that the civil service and the MOD told the Minister of the day about the trials and what was going on.

Dr. Reid: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is helping to clarify the issues by going into great detail. I can be no clearer than to say that previous Ministers were aware of the trials. I am aware of all the facts that the hon. Gentleman puts and of previous statements, but those events took place 30 years ago, and it is not always immediately apparent to those involved that every aspect of the issue was known to them at the time.
In the natural course of events, those involved would have caused investigations to be carried out, and would have written to people at the time asking for access to

papers. I am giving the hon. Gentleman the latest position: I understand that previous Ministers were aware of the trials. That will be elaborated in due course by the then Ministers themselves, once they have access to the information and have satisfied themselves that they have an accurate picture of events.
Another question raised was whether the local health authority was told of the trials. Nothing in our records, which we have studied, shows who was informed of the trials. However, during the exhibitions in Dorset, to which the hon. Member for Teignbridge and others referred, we were informed by a then employee of the county emergency planning staff that elements of the local authority were aware of the trials. We have also been told that the area health authority, which collected regular medical returns, detected nothing abnormal during or after the trials.
Finally, I was asked a specific question about harmful effects on immuno-compromised people, or people with asthma. In recent years, some people have questioned whether extremely large doses of the material, to which I shall refer later, that was used during the tests causes a problem in certain people, such as immuno-compromised people. I do not suggest that that means anyone to whom hon. Members have referred, but people with AIDS, for example, are classified as immuno-compromised. Although no specific studies have been carried out, the experts consulted do not believe that there would be a problem. Of course, the number of immuno-compromised people in the 1960s was very much smaller than it is now, and such people would be at much greater risk from the large number of other bacteria and viruses present in the atmosphere all the time than they would be from the four to which we shall refer today.
With reference to asthma, there are a large number of bacteria, viruses and other particles of biological origin, such as pollen and fungal spores, in the air all the time. There are no special features of BG—B. globigii—or E. coli that make them any more likely to cause asthma than all the organisms to which people are exposed all their lives.
I have dealt in some detail with those specific points, because I know that the hon. Gentleman and others have taken an interest in the matter over the years.
I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Teignbridge, which, because of his courtesy, I had been able to read in advance. I do not regard the subject as a matter of party politics; it is a matter of national interest, and I am gratified by the way in which it was handled by the hon. Gentleman. I was entirely in accord with that. One would expect a good constituency representative to raise issues that are of particular importance to his constituents.
I listened closely to the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful speech, and to those of other hon. Members. 1 shall deal with the main issues that he addressed, and if he wants to raise specific points, he will no doubt come back to me during the debate or in writing.
I am aware that the subject is, naturally, of great concern in the west country. 1 have read with close attention the articles that appeared in the local, and more recently the national, press, and I am therefore pleased to take the opportunity to respond to the points raised this morning.


Before I deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific concerns, I hope that he will allow me to establish for the record some basic facts on which I hope we can all agree. I do so because it is important that the House understands—as I do now, having been briefed in considerable detail—the background to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises.
The debate relates essentially to a series of trials carried out in the 1960s and 1970s by the former Microbiological Research Establishment, or MRE, at Porton Down. I should make it clear that MRE closed in 1979. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, or DERA, is now responsible for activities at Porton Down.
The tests to which we refer are those that scientists would probably prefer to call biological defence trials. We call them germ warfare tests, which is easier for ordinary people to understand, but the term provokes visions of dangers that might not be borne out when one realises what the tests involved.
The tests were carried out because, during the icy confrontation of the cold war, there was a real concern that infectious, disease-causing biological agents could be used to attack not only our armed forces, but the mainland of the United Kingdom. In retrospect, that may appear an idle invention, but it was not. It was a hard-headed assessment made at the time of a potentially terrifying threat to the British people.
The trials were designed to assess the potential impact of a biological attack on our country, and to determine what level of protection would be needed. The fearful consequences of such an attack, were it to be launched, need no amplification for hon. Members.

Dr. Julian Lewis: In support of the Minister's remarks, may I point out that, in 1992, President Yeltsin confirmed what had been suspected by western intelligence agencies for a long time: that, for 20 years, the Soviet Union had been breaching the 1972 biological weapons convention, whereby it was supposed to have abolished all its offensive biological weapons stocks, and had been carrying out detailed and intensive research on anthrax and other deadly diseases.

Dr. Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who we all know has an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of such matters. From my less than encyclopaedic knowledge, I can confirm my memory that that is correct. That revelation was made, as the hon. Gentleman says, within the past six years. Indeed, there is some concern that, even at that point, without the President's full knowledge and authority, the research was still being carried on. Such revelations during the past decade show that the attitude taken 20 years previously was not as melodramatic as it might seem in the more relaxed atmosphere of a thaw in the icy confrontation.
Faced with a dreadful perceived threat, scientists at the time needed to answer important questions, not as a matter of abstract scientific pursuits or as research for the sake of research, but with the practical implication of discharging the first duty of a Government—the protection of their citizens.
Scientists needed to know how far a cloud of bacteria would travel, how long organisms would survive in atmospheric conditions, and how such a cloud could be detected. All those questions had important practical implications for any counter-measures against biological attack.
To determine the answers to those questions, a range of trials was carried out. Some, which took place in many parts of southern England, involved the exposure of micro-organisms to the atmosphere in special apparatus, so that the bacteria were not released at all.
I am well aware that the natural secrecy with which such tests had to be carried out provokes even greater speculation about the meaning of terms such as "special apparatus". Hon. Members will have read accounts that special apparatus was used on London bridge. I can tell hon. Members that they need not worry; I can show them that special apparatus, which I understand is no longer classified. Some of the wilder visions of what it involved can be put to rest by opening up a little of the secrecy. The special apparatus is no longer being used, hon. Members will be pleased to know.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the House is not used to demonstrations of the kind that he has just made. It will be difficult to record it in the context of the debate, unless he will be good enough to describe what he has produced before the House.

Dr. Reid: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is precisely why I brought the apparatus with me. I was not quite sure how one would describe it. It is almost like a fish knife without a middle in it. It is a rectangular piece of metal approximately 1½ in long with a 2 in handle extended on it, round which was wrapped an extremely thin thread, almost of the dimension of a spider's web, which held within it a small number of such bacteria. The apparatus was carried on Waterloo bridge and elsewhere to expose it to the atmosphere, then put away and tested to see whether the bacteria had been killed by the atmosphere. It was as simple as that.
I hope that I have dispelled any visions of London being swamped by bacteria through the use of such special equipment. Hon. Members have heard my description, and I hope that they are somewhat relieved.
During his measured speech, the hon. Member for Teignbridge referred in passing to trials involving the release of micro-organisms far offshore while testing protective measures for ships and their crews. I cannot say that no material from those trials drifted overland, although that was not the intention of the tests. However, that possible outcome was not monitored, so I cannot provide any results.
The third category of tests to which hon. Members referred specifically has attracted the most attention.

Mr. Letwin: I think that hon. Members will understand that the Minister cannot give a guarantee whether the far offshore trials led to a dispersion of micro-organisms over land. However, can he give some assessment as to the likelihood that that occurred? Presumably he has been reassured by officials that the likelihood is very small, but it would be interesting to know the percentages.

Dr. Reid: I cannot give a guarantee, because it was never intended that the tests would involve bacteria


reaching land. The trials were conducted far offshore, so there was no monitoring on the land. However, the bacteria used in the tests do not last very long in a polluted atmosphere.
Some less concentrated or minute traces of bacteria may have reached land, so it is impossible for me to guarantee that no bacteria landed anywhere. However, the second series of tests was conducted so far from shore that it is extremely unlikely—that was the assumption at the time—that the bacteria would have caused land-based infection. When I describe the bacteria that were used in the third test, I think that the hon. Gentleman will be even more reassured. That point was at the heart of the contribution by the hon. Member for Teignbridge.
The third group of trials generated the most public interest, because it was intended that the bacteria would be carried on to the mainland by on-shore winds, and they may have travelled over populated areas with houses, places of work and other buildings. The hon. Gentleman asked for some clarification as to the range of the tests—was it five or 10 miles inland? I think—I speak from memory and not from notes—that the range was 40 or 50 miles inland.
There were good reasons for choosing Lyme bay as the trial site. Its geography meant that the trials could proceed in a variety of wind conditions. Its location was also convenient to the naval base at Portland and to Porton Down, which helped with setting up the trials and collecting the results.
For those trials that involved the release of micro-organisms in Lyme bay, bacteria levels were monitored over the mainland. In those trials, the Microbiological Research Establishment used a specially adapted experimental trials vessel, Icewhale, which was equipped to spray material from the rear of the vessel into the onshore wind. The exact course that the ship sailed, and the position of the land-based sampling sites on each trial, were determined by several factors, including weather conditions. The samples collected from the detectors behind the ship and from the land-based sampling stations were taken for scientific analysis in the laboratory.
I must reassure hon. Members that the scientists did not use real biological agents in those experiments, but four species of bacteria that would mimic the behaviour of real agents. Two of the bacteria, bacterium aerogenes and serratia marcescens, were killed before use. They were dead bacteria, and as such they would have been incapable of growing and of producing disease. Those species were used in only a limited number of trials.
Hon. Members may ask: if the bacteria were dead, why were they used? I remind them that one purpose of the tests was to see, among other things, how biological agents would be carried by weather conditions. Another purpose was to measure how long live bacteria would last in the atmosphere. Although the bacteria used were dead, they were still traced. They were covered with a translucent coat—I think it was purple—that allowed the bacteria, though dead, to be detected as they came ashore.
The other two species of bacteria that were used in the majority of the trials occur naturally in the environment, and most people are exposed to them many times during their lifetimes. The first organism, B. globigii—which, thankfully, is commonly referred to as BG—occurs widely in soil, dust, hay and water, and is naturally

present in large amounts during the autumn. It would be inhaled simply by walking in the countryside, and material disturbed during harvesting is likely to be released in high concentrations.
Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I asked what would happen if the organism were found in larger quantities and higher concentrations than normal. I was assured that there is no evidence that it would cause any particular ailment, and certainly no long-term damage.
The second micro-organism, E. coli strain MRE 162, causes concern because of its generic name. It is one of the many different strains of the E. coli species, in which I take a particular interest, given my constituency background and last year's tragic incidents. Many of the E. coli species are part of the normal flora of the intestines of man and animals. They are part of the background atmospheric rumble, both outside and inside human beings and animals.
Unlike some strains of the organism, MRE 162 does not produce harmful toxins. I stress that it is quite different from the strain that caused recent food poisoning epidemics in Scotland. Each batch was tested before use at the time, and its safety was reaffirmed recently by independent tests at the Central Public Health Laboratory using the most up-to-date technology. In this case—which I presume is the most worrying for hon. Members—we are relying not purely on 30-year-old assertions, but upon recent evidence as well.
Several hon. Members asked whether the trials were useful. I have been advised that they were extremely useful, providing a considerable amount of important information about the progress and survival of micro-organisms released close to the United Kingdom, as might happen in a biological attack.
For example, scientists were able to calculate the concentration of surviving organisms at different times and different distances from their source of release, and how that related to their size and meteorological conditions. In light of my description, hon. Members may assert that some results may contain information that we would not wish to disperse to anyone who might seek it. I shall return to that point.
Information gathered from these trials proved invaluable for assessing what measures would be needed to protect Britain and its people from a biological attack. The results obtained also contributed to the development of computer models that were used as late as the Gulf war to help plan to protect the UK armed forces should Saddam Hussein have used his biological weapons.
Hon. Members will know—they will need no reminding, since they read newspapers and watch television, and heard my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who answered a private notice question in the Chamber on Monday—that this is, of course, still a very live issue. Indeed, it is at the centre of some of the tensions that have arisen recently in the Gulf. When I refer to the release of information, 1 hope that it will be accepted that it is not merely convention, paranoia or natural secrecy that causes me not to give absolute assurances on these matters, although I will try to be as helpful as I can.
One of the contentious questions that cause concern today—not least to the hon. Member for Teignbridge—is, of course, whether the general public should have been told about the trials before they took place. Several


hon. Members raised that point. At the time, almost certainly for reasons of national security, the trials to simulate the impact of a biological attack on the United Kingdom were kept secret, although information subsequently became available in the form of reports placed in the Public Record Office at Kew.
As I have said before, it is important to remember that, at the time of the trials—more than 30 years ago—before the general thaw that we seem almost to take for granted today, there was a general disposition to keep defence matters very much under wraps. It goes without saying that biological warfare was a particularly secretive area. Certainly MRE would not have wanted to release any information that might have helped a potential aggressor, any more than I would wish to do so today.
Some of the detailed data remain sensitive. There is a fine balance to be struck between helping those with aggressive intentions and, on the other hand, informing people with a legitimate interest in what is going on.
I have given reasons why the trials were kept secret, although I accept that, if we were considering such trials today, they would not take place without some publicity—however constrained—and with greater information than would have been expected and was the convention some 30 years ago. Nevertheless, the existence of the trials has been in the public domain for many years, and in the past year in particular much more information has been placed in the Public Record Office.
The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency also held, as several hon. Members mentioned, a series of informative exhibitions during September 1997. Those exhibitions, in Dorchester, Weymouth and Bridport, were aimed specifically at explaining the background and facts surrounding the biological defence trials in the Dorset area, and gave many people the opportunity to talk to scientists and to find out exactly what took place.
The hon. Gentleman's other main—and entirely legitimate—concern was whether the trials presented any hazard to the health of the people living in his area, and in the areas of other hon. Members.
Let me be quite clear about this. The scientists who carried out the trials concluded at the time that they in no way posed a threat to human life. A current evaluation of the work has reaffirmed that conclusion. I referred to some of that work earlier as regards bacteria. None of the experiments would have been carried out if there had been any doubt about the effects on public safety. They were designed with the sole and exclusive purpose of ensuring public safety, and no harmful reactions were reported at the time.
Nevertheless, I do know of the anxieties, and that a number of concerns have been voiced since the existence of these experiments came to light. In particular, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge, and others, mentioned, a number of people have suffered, or some within their family group have suffered, serious and largely unexplained illness, and they believe that the trials may have had something to do with their specific medical problems.
I have every sympathy with their search for answers and explanations, and I would use this occasion—as no doubt the hon. Gentleman would—to urge them, if they

have suspicion about this, to approach their health authority, which has, in any case, just commissioned a statistical survey of the incidence of birth defects in the area covered by the trials.
Of course, the trials, as several hon. Members said, are just one of a number of potential factors that would need to be considered if any causal relationship was being studied. Nevertheless, it almost goes without saying that, if the health authority were to decide that there was a case to be investigated, I—and my Ministry—would, of course, be more than willing to assist them and to give them any help they wanted in interpreting the data, most of which are already in the public domain.

Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that the public will be greatly reassured by the way in which the Minister has handled this. He has given a painstaking explanation, and I am very grateful to him for it. However, I ask him to clarify one thing.
Is he saying that some of the information in documents that have yet to be released is still so sensitive that it will be exempt from the 30-year disclosure? If the information is sensitive today but is releasable in a year, 18 months or two years' time, the case for its release may not be very attractive to civil servants, but, from a political perspective, which the Minister will understand completely, there could be a very good reason indeed for releasing it now. Which of those two categories does the information fall into?

Dr. Reid: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that I have read the other 27 documents—I have not. However, I shall look at this and review the risk, in my view, of releasing information, which on its own is sometimes not dangerous but which, when added incrementally to other information in the public sphere, can be of great use to a potential enemy. I will balance that against the political requirements. I will be as open and honest as I can. I will have two caveats, because this is not completely in my power to handle.

Mr. Key: rose—

Dr. Reid: I shall give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman, but I really must finish now.

Mr. Key: I shall be brief. I am very grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has conducted the debate. He is not a scientist, and nor am I, but we are both concerned for constituents who are genuinely worried about any ill health that they may feel goes from generation to generation. Is it the Minister's understanding, as it is mine, that, even though no dangerous pathogens were released, if chemical or biological agents which were real had been released, their effects would have taken place within minutes or hours, and we would not be talking about something happening 30 years later?

Dr. Reid: That depends on which bacteria were released, but, yes, in most cases, that certainly would have been the case. I understand that, because, for very good reasons, many of these matters had to be kept secret at the time—some of them, perhaps, even now—people's suspicions are naturally heightened. That is not automatically the case. There are very good reasons for


having kept some of this secret. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that, if the health authority were to decide that there is a case to be investigated, we will be willing to assist it, in interpreting the data in particular.
In the meantime, some of the formal scientific reports relating to these trials have already been routinely released—in the normal way—into the Public Record Office at Kew. The remainder are in the process of being so released.
I have no unconstrained power in my office to order release. There is the 30-year rule. Other Departments are involved in this. It is not entirely within my gift. There may, of course, be matters that relate specifically to future security.
However, I can tell the House that, in discussions with Porton Down, I have made my own view known, and have asked that whatever steps can be taken by my office to assist the processes being accelerated should be taken. I have also ordered that copies of reports so far published, and any others that are published, are placed in the Library of the House to make it easier for hon. Members to access them rather than having to send to Porton Down or anywhere else. I hope that that is of some assistance.
I hope that my commitment to be open and honest in dealing with the public on these issues, and to offer assistance to the local authorities where we sensibly can, together with the facts that I have set out this morning, will offer some reassurance to those living in the localities in which the tests took place.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Teignbridge for bringing these issues to my attention, and for providing me with the opportunity publicly to respond to the points that he made; and to assure him and his colleagues that, as far as the Ministry of Defence is concerned, we will do whatever we can to reassure the public and address his constituents' anxiety.

Housing

Mr. David Drew: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate one of the biggest issues that face us as we enter the next millennium: where people are going to live. I do not intend to speak for long, because I know how many other hon. Members wish to speak.
On entering the House, I was somewhat surprised to find how little national debate there had been about this subject, despite the last Government's paper entitled "Household growth: where shall we live?" and a report on housing need by the Environment Select Committee. Given its importance and relevance to every constituency, and therefore to every Member of Parliament, it is surprising what a low public profile the issue has had. Many of us have had to deal with housing development in our own localities.
Housing has slipped down the public agenda, despite fulfilling a basic human need, and is frequently perceived as a purely local and technical matter. Because of that, housing development figures are seen to be irrefutable and handed down from above, although they should be a key element in debate with the public. We all know that housing is one of the issues that should gain resonance during general elections, but recently it has failed to feature.
The Department of the Environment published the latest set of household projections in 1995. The figures predicted a 4.4 million, or 23 per cent., increase in the number of households in England between 1991 and 2016, and have been used to determine the level and location of new housing development across the country. What is emerging is the existence of localised planning disputes focusing on the specifics of individual sites and the question of where the housing should go. What is being missed is the bigger picture, and questions about whether the housing figures are valid or indeed desirable, whether their impact is acceptable in economic, social and environmental terms and whether they amount to a coherent strategy.
In my constituency, there is growing resentment about plans for thousands of extra houses, which has resulted in many letters in my postbag. For much of my time as a local councillor, I have been personally involved with development and planning, and I understand the frustration felt by many local residents. I believe that the time has come when we must be prepared to question the basis of the housing projections, particularly if we want to be a listening Government.
I want to raise three specific concerns: the validity and repercussions of the housing figures, the issue of sustainability and the role of public policy in housing. The current projection of 4.4 million additional households is based on the assumption that the future is simply a continuation of past trends, and, in particular, that demographic changes, migration patterns and social behaviour will continue much as before. That is admitted in the last Government's paper on household growth, although in other areas of policy such as road building the "predict and provide" approach is now being seriously questioned, primarily on grounds of environmental impact.
Research by Professor Glen Bramley of Heriot-Watt university has highlighted the circularity of the relationship between household projections and economic


and housing market factors—the influence of the supply of housing on demand, and vice versa. That has much in common with the road-building and traffic debate.
Let me now deal with some of the specific factors that generate housing numbers: an aging population, the fact that younger people are leaving home earlier, the growing divorce and separation rate, the existence of more single-person households and migration flows across the country, essentially from urban to rural areas and from north to south. I am particularly interested in that last feature, because of the dynamic that migration causes in parts of the country. In the south-west, it generates development as much as indigenous growth. We must therefore subject the figures to thorough scrutiny.
Research carried out over the past two years by John Allinson of the University of the West of England on net migration into Gloucestershire raises serious doubts about the robustness of the net in-migration figures being used to determine the massive house-building programme, and an approach based entirely on past trends rather than public policy. In its structure plan, Gloucestershire county council assumes a net annual in-migration of 2,700 people, but Allinson demonstrates that the true figure is much lower. In his view, that is due to emerging societal sea changes relating principally to labour and housing markets.
The real significance of John Allinson's research, however, lies in what he has to say about migration patterns beyond Gloucestershire at regional and national levels. The overall implications are simple but dramatic. In Gloucestershire, planners are about to make provision for some 6,000 more houses than are required, thereby needlessly and irreversibly destroying hundreds of acres of green-field land. The reduction in net migration flows that is increasingly evident in Gloucestershire is being replicated in the other counties in the south-west and in other regions, and is part of a wider national trend. Moreover, public policy can have an impact on migration between areas of the country, and, in particular, out of our cities.
Although the research only examines the migration element of the household projections, that element accounts for more than half the predicted growth in Gloucestershire, and is therefore significant. However, there are other aspects of the key assumption that raise doubts about the overall soundness of the projections and the methodology employed. For example, the figures assume virtually no increase in the proportion of households in which people are cohabiting, which rose from 2.9 per cent. to 6.4 per cent. between 1981 and 1991. It is projected to have risen by only 0.3 per cent. between 1991 and 2016, which reinforces the thesis of a massive growth in single-person households.
The figures do not appear to have been adjusted for the estimated missing million people who failed to complete the 1991 census, thereby reducing the average household size and, again, reinforcing the thesis of a smaller household—a case of "Honey, I shrunk the household". That provides strong evidence that the household figures are open to challenge, are likely to be a significant overestimate and therefore need to be reviewed as part of a reappraisal of housing requirements.
Given the consequences for local economies, communities and the environment, the accumulated data must be acted on. The numbers will be affected, directly and indirectly, by policy decisions. For example, a substantial regional investment creating jobs eventually affects migration from, for instance, the north to the south. Social, affordable housing provision designed to meet the local needs of those on low incomes—the homeless and young indigenous people—is more effective than massive increases in housing supply at lower prices.
Similarly, changing patterns of student study may encourage students to stay in their home environment, and improvements in standards in urban schools may persuade families to stay in the cities. We therefore have serious doubts about trend-based forecasts that take the last 20 years, and roll the findings forward into the next 20 and make the result the main presumption behind housing needs.
Next, let me deal with sustainability. Notwithstanding the arguments, we must consider how the housing debate can be advanced. The concept of sustainability needs to be central. More clarity and a higher priority are required before its implications for economies, communities and the environment can be properly weighed within a modernised planning system. Associated issues of capacity and environmental impact assessment are also essential if we are to have more integrated evolutionary planning.
One way in which we could reduce development pressures without absolving ourselves of responsibility for unforeseen changes, while maintaining a coherent planning strategy, would be to introduce the phasing of land allocation for development. Programmed reviews of need would be built in, and, perhaps, land would be released on a sequential basis designed to enhance sustainability and the regeneration of local economies and communities, and to discourage cherry-picking of the best green-field sites.
Another associated issue is the use of brown-field sites in preference to green-field sites. In principle, that approach supports the notion that minimising the impact on the environment should largely determine the location of new housing. The last Government suggested in a White Paper a target of 50 per cent. building on brown-field sites, and more recently the United Kingdom round table on sustainable development has suggested a 75 per cent. target.
The identification of brown-field sites has posed difficulties, and local authorities need to make a greater effort. A system of incentives and constraints is required if less attractive or costly sites are to be provided. Nevertheless, those high targets are likely to prove unrealistic. Brown-field sites are not evenly distributed across the country, and the impact on the urban environment needs to be considered carefully.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I have been listening with much interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech. Does he agree that, to an extent, the use of brown-field sites is a question of urban renewal? If we built sensible housing—dare I say, what abroad would be termed apartments, and what people wish to live in in Paris—instead of building detached housing in the countryside, in which people are encouraged to live, we would kill two


birds with one stone. We would renew the cities without destroying the countryside of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken so eloquently.

Mr. Drew: I agree with the hon. Member. Planning policies should reflect that, so that we prevent an attack on our countryside and make urban centres places where people want to live.
To degrade the quality of life in cities through excessive development will, ultimately, prove to be disastrous for the countryside, as it will inevitably lead to further migration.
If we are to wean people off the car, we must think hard about where development is placed, and how sufficient jobs can be created locally. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that that has been successful. Too often, the locus for new development is road systems, and jobs have to follow people. That results in settlements that are essentially commuter land. Sadly, where such developments have occurred, rather than adding to the social mix, younger people are driven out and jobs go with them.
Those features are only too apparent in my constituency. Stroud is currently having to implement a new county structure plan as well as attempting its own local plan. The area faces considerable constraints, because 50 per cent. of the district is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty, another 27 per cent. runs along the Severn estuary, much of which is a site of international ecological importance, and a significant remainder of the district is prime agricultural land or has conservation area status. Less than 5 per cent. of the land is considered brown-field, much of which is already designated for employment purposes.
Outside those constraints, there are areas of immense sensitivity. The late Laurie Lee's Slad valley has no protective designation, and was subject to a recent planning inquiry, which was thankfully turned down. Does anyone pretend that that is acceptable?
Despite those constraints, this summer Stroud district council produced a draft plan for consultation. It has encouraged the involvement in that process of parish and town councils and the general public. In a survey of the entire district, 70 per cent. of those who responded supported a dispersal strategy as opposed to a new settlement, which was the favoured option of the county council initially and which would have had a devastating impact on the environment and on the economies of local market towns, especially Stroud.
Stroud district council is now attempting a bottom-up approach to resolve difficulties. It is too early to say whether that bold approach will be successful, but it must be the way forward, provided that the numbers are realistic and account is taken of the constraints.
There is a need to understand the specific dynamics of our rural areas, but that is not to argue that, as an alternative, houses should be crammed into cities. The message is that the future health and sustainability of the countryside is dependent on the health and sustainability of our cities.
We must revise the approach that resulted in urban and rural policies being entirely separate spheres, and we should examine the relationship between the two as a basis of a clearer vision of what both want. Protection of the countryside must go hand in hand with a strong, urban policy.
I want to comment on the planning system. I would argue for a proper, plan-led system to enable communities better to control their environment and to meet local needs, and to bring certainty into the process. That would overcome the policy and practice in recent years that allowed market forces to dominate.
One of my concerns is provision for windfall sites, which undermines the certainty of a plan-led system. The Council for the Protection of Rural England argues that windfalls should be adequately accounted for by local authorities. In particular, a plan-led system would provide for a specific number of homes to be built, which would reassure village communities that a precedent is not being created for excessive development in the future. A plan-led system should also allow proper provision for social housing to deal with homelessness and social exclusion, rather than having to rely on piggy-backing private development.
I support the Government's regional strategy. I advocate combining the capacity that it offers with the development of a broad planning policy with a bottom-up approach that involves people in the creation of sustainable, revitalised communities.
I would welcome a visit to Gloucestershire by the Minister, not to get him embroiled in protracted local issues, but to engage him in a wide discussion on the Government's thinking on how the planning system could be improved.
The Government have been criticised by the Conservative party for not listening to the interests of the countryside. I hope that, by initiating this debate, I have shown that Labour Members are genuinely concerned with the real issues of the countryside, and that we will play our part in this major issue. We have shown our concern through local Agenda 21—or Vision 21 as we call it in Gloucestershire—whereby factors such as sustainability have been discussed. In its own way, that could be a model for the future. It is through such initiatives and getting people involved that we shall begin to find answers to what otherwise seems to be an intractable problem.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is clear that several hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. Brevity will assist.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). He even acknowledged that Conservative Members are suspicious that Labour Members have no care for the countryside. I was grateful for his contribution, and I shall listen carefully to ensure that the Minister agrees with him, and with the vast majority of Conservative Members, that we must do much more to preserve the countryside that we all enjoy, irrespective of whether we live in the country or the town.
I am not speaking from a NIMBYist "not in my backyard" position. I shall talk about the importance of preserving the countryside in my area, but I shall also refer to the commitment of certain villages in my constituency to the need to give some of their land for extra housing.


The previous Government's commitment to the preservation of the environment was second to none. We shall be careful to ensure that that commitment is carried on by the new Government. The previous Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), said in a debate only last week that he could recall only one occasion on which he gave permission to build on a green-field site. The new Government have a lot to live up to. When she was Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher said that we were merely leaseholders of this land for future generations. It is a full, repairing lease, so we have a lot of work to do.
Conservative Members are suspicious not only of the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), but of the Government's commitment to agriculture, especially in less-favoured areas. Agriculture is part of the countryside that we all enjoy. The £60 million in hill livestock compensatory allowances for last year will be taken away for this year, and that will be a terrible deprivation for farmers. That is one of the reasons why Conservative Members are so concerned.
There is much concern about the problems that new homes in the countryside bring with them. We have to put up with extra traffic from tourists and those who come to live in the countryside, and extra pressure is caused by the erection of telecommunication masts, wind turbines and pylons. The countryside is under attack not just from housing, but from other pressures.
Several reports over the summer—primarily in The Sunday Times—claimed that the Government are preparing to relax restrictions on the building of up to 2 million new homes in the countryside. The reports claimed that millions of acres of green-field land, such as the green-belt land between Hemel Hempstead and Stevenage, could be converted into housing estates.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the report of the Round Table on Sustainable Development, which said that 75 per cent. of extra housing could be built on brown-field sites. If the Government are sufficiently committed to that, it will be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said that we should consider different ways of providing the extra housing that will be necessary due to changing demographics and people's changing needs.
It has been estimated that, without any restrictions, the countryside will have to find room for at least 2 million more homes. Current figures from the Council for the Protection of Rural England show that, 270,000 acres of countryside will each year be flooded with concrete by developers. That is equivalent to 250,000 football pitches. The CPRE reckons that, by 2016, an area the size of Hampshire will have been lost—and that is before the relaxation of current restrictions.
Imagine how much worse it would be if the Government allowed building on green-field sites. I do not dispute that extra housing is needed, but we have to be careful exactly where we put it all. How turning much of our green and pleasant land into an urban jungle will solve the problems of neglected inner cities is beyond me.
I have already seen what plans to build on small villages can do to an area. The hon. Member for Stroud talked about his constituency; 75 per cent. of my

constituency is an area of outstanding natural beauty. That means that, in many ways, there is much more pressure on the rest of the constituency. People think that there is a straight demarcation line: they are either in the AONB or outside it. Of course, much of the area leads up to the AONB, so it is all part of the countryside that people enjoy.

Mr. David Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Does he accept that in constituencies such as his, or mine on the fringe of the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty and green belt, there is reinforced pressure for development because they lie just beyond the fringe of areas where restraint is obligatory?

Mr. Evans: Of course I accept that. Because they enjoy the countryside in the area of outstanding natural beauty, people live as close as they can to it; it is on their doorstep. They do not realise that, as all this building is going on there, they are helping to scar and to encroach on AONBs and to damage the very thing that they love, so we have to be guarded about that.
On villages with surrounding AONBs, as I have said, in my constituency Barrow has taken on more than 200 houses. That does not sound like a lot, but it is double the size of the village. Clitheroe, another area around my constituency, is one of the larger market towns and it has taken on several hundred houses, which are dotted all over the place. Each application does not sound like an awful lot—some are for only about 70 or 100 houses—but they all take up different green-field sites dotted around the town.
One green-field site is taken up after another, although each application is for only one more green-field site. Over years, several green-field sites have been taken over. They are disappearing by stealth, and we must guard against such applications.
In Ribchester, a brown-field site has been used for extra housing: it is a mixed development of affordable housing and less affordable housing. I have no problems with that at all, although there was much concern among villagers about all the extra housing coming in. However, the new development has married well with the village.
Longridge has also given over some extra fields to housing. As the name would suggest, Fulwood—which is near the Preston end of the constituency, which is more urban—was at some stage a wood. Now we can drop the word "wood" and just have the word "full", because just four green-field sites are left.
The Commission for the New Towns owns those four fields. I and residents in the area have had many meetings with the CNT, trying to appeal to it. We know that it has an obligation to get the best price for the land, and one of the ways in which to do that is obviously to secure planning permission for houses on it, but we have asked the CNT to be a little compassionate and to have regard to all the extra housing that has been built in the Fulwood area—some "lungs" are necessary for all the people who have moved into the extra housing. We have had some constructive meetings with the CNT, and I hope that they will continue.
My constituency has also suffered from the fact that three large institutions have virtually all closed, apart from one that is now half in operation. They are former


mental institutions of the Victorian style, which housed 3,000 patients. As they have closed, they have become ripe for sell-off and for housing then to be built there. Because those large institutions were not too far away from other villages, which used to supply much of the work force, there is now tremendous pressure for the old hospitals to be flattened and for developments of 1,000 houses to be put on those areas, with little regard to the fact that there are only 500 houses in the neighbouring village.
Again, we ask the Minister to consider those sites carefully. No one is discounting the fact that, once the hospitals disappear, building can go on to the footprint of the old hospital site, but people resent green fields around the old hospital being given up so that extra housing can go on to those green-field sites as well, totally swamping the old villages, with little regard for the infrastructure, never mind the fact that doctors' surgeries and schools cannot cope with the extra numbers.
One of the deals is to say to developers, "You can put on these extra houses so long as you give us extra money to build an extra school." It is called planning gain. I plead with the Minister: there is such a thing as non-planning gain. One of the reasons why people go to live in or visit the countryside is because conditions in cities and towns are not replicated there. Certain people, as we have already heard, want to live in cities and towns, and we have to regenerate those areas to ensure that they can do so. It is done in other countries and we should be looking to do it more here. That will also work as a safety valve for less building in the countryside, so that people can come from cities and towns and enjoy the countryside as well.
I ask the Minister, therefore, to consider carefully those old hospital sites. Many other institutions are past their sell-by date and there is now tremendous pressure for them to be turned into something else. Another one, called Whittingham, an old mental institution, has been flattened and there is tremendous pressure to put 1,000 houses on that site as well. There are about 500 houses in the local village, and villagers are protesting. We have the support of the local council to ensure that the development is down to about 375 houses, so it is not true that we do not want any houses there. We accept that some building will take place, but we ask for sensitivity to ensure that the developments are as small as possible.
I shall now bring my remarks to a close because I know that many other hon. Members want to speak about the problems in their constituencies, and the more people talk about their anecdotal evidence, the stronger the case will be. In many cases, building on green fields is viewed as cheaper, but it will have an enormous cost, which will be borne by all of us and by future generations, if we allow it to go ahead. Those future generations have no say at the moment and we have to speak up on their behalf as well, so that they can enjoy what we are enjoying currently.

Ms Tess Kingham: I support much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has said. However, representing an urban constituency, I view the issue of the 40,000 to 50,000-plus new homes to be developed in our county from a slightly different perspective.
Perhaps I feel a little sensitive that my constituency, the city of Gloucester, might be an easy target for the new developments and the tens of thousands of new homes that we have to accommodate on our doorstep, because the recent history of growth has been one of incremental development on the boundary of Gloucester. Often, housing estates have sprung up on the edges of the city, where the agenda has been set predominantly by developers rather than by the communities that have to sustain themselves for future generations.
I have another anecdotal, but perhaps briefer, example. Quedgeley in my constituency has about 10,000 residents. It is a big new development on the southern part of Gloucester city. It was originally developed as part of Stroud district, but the residents, being so close to Gloucester, needed to rely to on Gloucester for services, for transport and for everything that is required to sustain a community.
Eventually, therefore, the city boundaries were changed and Quedgeley became a welcome part of our city. However, the people there now feel let down because, over time, they have realised that they have nice houses, but little else. They have a poor transport network after bus deregulation, few community services, few pre-school services and poor shopping facilities.
Abbeymead is another big estate that has been bolted on to the east of the city. It comprises very nice houses—predominantly three to four-bedroom or smaller detached houses that attract young families. Yet, once again, it is a developer-led settlement rather than a community-led settlement, so residents have little access to good public transport. There is no pre-school provision for under-fives, and shopping facilities are bad. The developments that have sprung up around Gloucester have been bolted on to the edge of our city and are developer-led. We should be building communities, not simply houses.
Gloucester has learnt some sharp lessons from the new developments. The Government should provide a lead, centrally and at county level, and address the housing puzzle with more vision. The previous Government left us in a mess. We are now looking to the new Labour Government not simply to puzzle out where to put new houses, but to have a long-term strategic vision of where future communities should be.
It is often convenient for rural areas to avoid any development by shunting developments on to the urban fringes, but that is storing up problems for the future. I understand that those living in beautiful rural areas do not want large developments, but nor do we want to take what often seems to be the easy option—shoving new developments on to the edges of cities without any real consideration for the needs of the communities.
More than half Gloucestershire comprises areas of outstanding natural beauty or green belt land. It would be very difficult for Gloucester to absorb many more new developments by bolting them on to the edges of our cities without longer-term vision and a strategic approach to developing communities.
There are difficulties, because we have to rely on private developers. We know what we want in our cities—it has already been mentioned by Opposition Members. We want to develop inner-city areas—flats above shops, small low-cost housing units for single people and elderly people. We want some of the run-down areas in the city


to be redeveloped. However, we have to rely on private developers. When they can choose between regenerating an inner-city area with derelict streets or building profitable estates bolted on to the outskirts of cities, we all know which option they will take. We want development in Gloucester to be from the inside out, not bolted on the outskirts of the city.
We are looking to the new Labour Government to take a firm lead, as I am sure they will, in clearing up the mess that we were left by the previous Administration. We want an approach that goes beyond physical planning, reliance on private developers and current planning arrangements. We need a joint strategy to encompass housing, employment needs and transport to create large self-sustaining communities and a regional policy that meets that vision.
I want to be able to reassure local communities in Gloucester that it is not simply a puzzle of where to put 40,000 to 50,000 new house and shunting them between rural and urban areas. Therefore, I am asking the Government to reassure the people in my constituency that there is a long-term vision of building communities that takes us into the new millennium considering all the elements that a new community needs, including employment, community facilities and giving local authorities the power and encouragement to deal with private developers and look at the real needs of the communities that they serve.

Mr. Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for initiating today's debate on an issue that affects rural constituencies and suburban ones such as mine.
The hon. Member for Stroud has already explained why there will be an increase in the number of households. That there will be is indisputable, but there is doubt about the number of homes that might be required. A figure of 4.4 million has been mentioned, but it is possible to reach another figure—some 500,000—and I shall explain how.
The 4.4 million figure was projected in 1991. Since then, up to 1 million homes may already have been built, so we may be talking about a requirement of an additional 3.4 million. The figures assume inward migration. Historically, there have been periods when there has been no inward migration, so it is possible that 500,000 fewer dwellings may be needed. Assumptions have been made about the increase in the number of single households. If half the built-in increase actually occurs, a further 600,000 homes may be knocked off the estimate. Finally, there are 800,000 empty homes, so that figure can be taken off the list.
If we subtract all those figures from the original 4.4 million, we are left with 500,000. My calculation illustrates the wide range of figures that could be used, and the discrepancy makes it extremely important that the Government re-examine the figures.
The figures were produced in 1991 and the Government should not assume, six years later, that 4.4 million homes continue to be required and that new settlements and towns should be built throughout the country on the basis of figures that could be significantly out.

Mr. David Kidney: There may be a danger of wishful thinking getting in the way of facts.

I appreciate that we are working on the previous Government's figures, but are not the projected housing figures reviewed every three years? Were not the present figures reviewed in 1995? Is it not also the case that they are based on Government statistics that were collected in 1992 and that the three most recent projections underestimated the growth in housing need? Is the hon. Gentleman not being a little unrealistic in hoping that we can reduce the figure simply be adjusting the mathematics?

Mr. Brake: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was saying only that there is some debate about the accuracy of the figure of 4.4 million. I am not suggesting that only 500,000 new houses are required; simply that there is a difference of view among experts about the figure. For that reason, the Government should consider a phased release of land rather than do everything in one go.

Mrs. Diana Organ: I agree that the figures are based on historic data that are merely projected forward. No clear methodology or model is employed in calculating the figures. As the Guinness advert says, 33 per cent. of all statistics are made up on the spot. One gets the feeling that the mechanical model of projecting from historic trends is not the way to discover our housing needs. The figures must be right, otherwise we will build on our green acres and all will be lost.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief and addressed to the Chair.

Mr. Brake: The Government should re-examine the projections, otherwise builders will embark unnecessarily on a massive building programme.
I should like to know whether demand can be reduced. The previous Government attempted to use social engineering with back to basics, but I am not suggesting that route. Demand cannot be reduced by social engineering, but something can be done about the 800,000 empty homes. The Government should support initiatives such as the above-shop scheme. In the past couple of days, my local council has set up an empty homes hotline that people can call if they have inherited a home that they are not using or are aware of a dwelling that has been empty for a number of years. Such schemes should be encouraged.
Can housing demand be influenced by the Government? Undoubtedly—even if they influence only inter-region migration. As the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, the Government could increase employment and prosperity in certain areas, thereby reducing the need for migration. An integrated transport policy could help to ensure that currently inaccessible places are easier to reach, and make people want to remain there. The Government should examine also the reasons for inter-region migration.
If we accept that millions of homes are required, should we build them? We are back to the predict-and-provide question. Unlike roads—to which one can provide an alternative in the form of public transport—we cannot provide an alternative to a roof over someone's head; housing has to be provided.
If we provide housing, where should it be built? Brown-field and green-field sites have already been mentioned. The Government currently believe that


perhaps 50 per cent. of new housing can be built on brown-field sites and that the remaining 50 per cent. can be built in other locations. Other experts hold a different view—that possibly 60 per cent. of new housing can be built on brown-field sites and that 40 per cent. can be built in other areas. There is a good case for choosing and running with a target. Perhaps the Government should consider a 60 per cent. rather than a 50 per cent. construction target on brown-field sites.
Whether homes are built on brown-field or green-field sites, there will be some common requirements, some of which the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) outlined. Matters that require consideration include transport, health provision, education, social services, water resources and a host of other issues that will have to be considered at the time.
In my constituency, in the ward of Wandle valley, there has been massive private residential development. The only problem is that general practitioner services have not kept pace and many people now find it extremely difficult to get on to a GP's list. We must consider all the implications before we start a building programme on either brown-field or green-field sites.
It is environmentally preferable to build on brown-field sites. As technological advances are made, it will be easier, and I hope cheaper, to decontaminate sites. In my constituency, a BP chemical plant is being redeveloped as a model housing estate, with which we are very pleased. Moreover, commercial advances will make decontamination easier. Recently, an organisation with which some hon. Members may be familiar launched a commercial insurance scheme under which it provides land certification and developers with cover for potential risks associated with decontamination work.
Such developments will make it easier to develop brown-field sites, but we must ensure that jobs follow those developments. There is no point building homes on brown-field—or even on green-field—sites if there are no jobs. Furthermore, development will have to go hand in hand with regeneration of town centres. As hon. Members have said in this debate, brown-field site developments can help us to regenerate inner cities and other urban areas.
There is undoubtedly insufficient brown-field land. We must therefore consider building on other land—on what I have described as taupe-field land. For hon. Members who do not know it, taupe is a mixture of brown and grey. Taupe-field sites are those on which there is already some development, such as a road or a retail or industrial park. If we run out of brown-field land, perhaps we should consider either taupe-field sites or land on which there has been limited development, such as Ministry of Defence land.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is probable that all hon. Members in the Chamber favour greater development on brown-field land. The problem is that much of it is contaminated. Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea how we might decontaminate brown-field land and therefore be able to build on more of it?

Mr. Brake: In my constituency, BP has very successfully decontaminated land by removing topsoil and cleaning the environment. Decontamination has already happened. I do not think that there are any problems with decontaminating some land.
As a last resort, green-field sites will undoubtedly have to be used. Organisations that one would never have expected to support such development are already saying, "Yes, it will have to happen, because a limited amount of land is available for development."
I should like Ministers, first, to review the housing projections. They must be reviewed, regardless of whether they are made on a three-yearly basis. Secondly, the Government should also back an empty homes campaign, spearheaded by all local authorities. Finally, if development happens, as it must, it should happen—in descending order—on brown-field, taupe-field and green-field land.

Mr. Michael Wills: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in a debate on a matter that is of such great concern to my constituents in North Swindon. I know that our concerns are shared by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown). I too should like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on initiating this important debate. As he rightly said, the housing need projection could change the face of the country and transform the way in which we live. I therefore agree with him and with other hon. Members who have spoken that that figure requires greater scrutiny.
Some housing increase is clearly required. The Government must also tackle the legacy of homelessness that they have inherited from the previous Government—an objective on which they have made a heartening start. Equally, new housing may have to be provided because of changing living patterns. The sheer scale of the numbers, however, is causing concern. It is projected that, by 2016, more than 5,000 new homes will be required in every constituency in the country, with all the consequent pressures on the local environment and infrastructure.
In Swindon, pressure on our green-field sites is already intense, and our share of the projected numbers could turn an already intolerable situation into an impossible one. I am sure that we are not alone, because numbers on such a scale amount to a revolution. I hope that no hon. Member would embark on a revolution without the most rigorous analysis of all the issues.
Much of the national debate—although not in the Chamber today, I am pleased to note—has focused on where new housing should be built and on the correct balance between green-field and brown-field sites. Although that is a vital issue, I should like to focus today on what, logically, is a prior issue. How certain can we be that we really need to make provision for quite so many homes? The answer must be: not very.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and other hon. Members have said, the numbers have been reached by trend-based projections, which are extrapolations based on past behaviour. The evidence is that that technique has not proved wholly reliable. Between 1981 and 1992, for example, projections for annual household formation between 1991 and 1996 varied by almost 100 per cent.
Will such reliability really provide the basis for paving over our fields? I hope not. I suggest that public policy should never be too narrowly based on projections derived from highly complex sets of assumptions about human behaviour in 20 years' time. Will such projections really


provide the only justification for concreting over our green spaces? Again, I hope not. I fear, however, that that is precisely what we will do if we allow the figure of 4.4 million new homes required by 2016 to be the driver of our housing policy.
As my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have pointed out, the figure is based on assumptions about social trends, which could easily turn out to be wrong in a society that is increasingly characterised by rapid change. Even relatively limited areas in the assumptions could have significant consequences for the figures.
In a study published in August, the city firm Credit Lyonnais Laing estimates that more than 1 million homes could be removed from the projection total if different, but realistic, assumptions are made about the growth in single unmarried households and a return to nil migration. All the experience of government in recent years tells us that, the more complex the calculations, the more likely they are to be wrong. These calculations are very complex. The more the Government depend on such calculations, the more likely they are to make mistakes.
Of course a start must be made somewhere. It would be wrong of me to cast aspersions on the validity of the methodology; that is not the point. The point is that government is an iterative process. It has to respond to the way in which complex forces interact with each other. We must not let a mathematical formula alone transform our landscape and our environment.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman, my parliamentary neighbour, is making a very cogent case for looking very carefully at projections. Does he agree that, if we over-provide, such over-provision—for any of the statistical reasons that he has enunciated—could become self-fulfilling?

Mr. Wills: Yes, I agree. That is one of the reasons why I am so worried about the apparent reliance on the figure.
It is clear from all the speeches in this debate that policies to implement the current figures will have a dramatic impact on this country. Surely there should be a more fully informed public debate on whether the people want their lives to be transformed in such a way.
Why cannot the Government produce a spread of scenarios based on realistic variations of key statistical factors, showing the impact of each scenario on the projected housing need and the resulting implications for the environment? With such a range of scenarios, we would be in a position to start making democratic decisions about whether we want to try to influence the key factors driving housing demand to produce a different outcome from the one we currently foresee. We are not helpless; there are all sorts of options. We have heard several in this debate—not least, encouraging the more efficient use of housing stock.

Ms Julia Drown: Whether we can make better use of housing stock is a very important issue. The need for 33 per cent. of the 4.4 million homes is due to a change in behaviour, which would suggest that we could make greater use of conversion. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be looking at the tax

structure? There is a huge disincentive to convert homes because value added tax has to be paid—whereas it does not on new homes. Does he agree that the Government should be considering that?

Mr. Wills: I certainly agree. That is precisely the sort of measure that we need to factor into the figures to produce different scenarios for consideration by the people.
The Government have already signalled that they are prepared to make judgments and hard choices about the way in which people live for economic, social and health reasons. Should not we also be prepared to consider such action for environmental ones too? The election of the Government on 1 May revealed that people wanted to take their future back into their own hands. Now is the time for the Government to help them to do so over one of the most important issues facing the country. If we get this wrong, our children and our children's children will pay the price for generations.
A poet summed up the risk far better than I can—a man who contemplated Britain from his library in the town now represented in such a distinguished manner by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Philip Larkin wrote:

"I thought it would last my time
The sense that, beyond the town,
There would always be fields and farms.
For the first time I feel somehow
That it isn't going to last
That before I snuff it, the whole
Boiling will be bricked in
Except for the tourist parts
And that will be England gone:
The shadows, the meadows, the lanes,
The guildhalls, the carved choirs.
There'll be books; it will linger on
In galleries; but all that remains
For us will be concrete and tyres."

I urge the Government to heed his warning and look again at the figures.

Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing a debate on this very important subject. He made a detailed speech about the statistics and analysis underlying the housing requirement. I do not propose to go too far down that route.
The hon. Member for Stroud will know that the previous Government received expert advice that there would be a growth in the number of households from 19.2 million to 23.6 million between 1991 and 2016. The hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) cast some doubts on the statistics. It will be important for the Minister in his winding-up speech to say whether he agrees with the projection.
The figure is, of course, only a projection, which can always be revised. If it is revised downwards, we would all be pleased. None the less, the projection was


made on the basis of expert advice, so it is incumbent on the Minister to say clearly whether he accepts it or questions it in the way his Back Benchers have.
The previous Government received the expert advice from very good sources. I say to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that that advice was considered by the then Select Committee on the Environment, which did not question the projection. In fact, it said that there was a consensus among experts that the figure might be an underestimate.
When the Government receive such expert advice, they have to be responsible, act on it, and be open. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) for his openness. He acted on the best advice available. For him, the question was not so much how many, but where. He set about planning in the most sustainable and environmentally friendly way. As the last Secretary of State for the Environment, he was a great friend of the environment. My speech will concentrate on the environment.
In meeting the housing requirement, it is vital that the planning system responds to the challenge and, if at all possible, steers development away from the green belt. I am very troubled, as a Member representing Hertfordshire, by the way in which the county and some borough authorities have responded to the planning process. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, Hertfordshire county council has allocated for development 1,000 acres of green belt between Hemel Hempstead and Stevenage. That is of great concern throughout Hertfordshire. As the House will know, the green belt in Hertfordshire and the south-east generally is an extremely sensitive issue.

Ms Drown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an incentive to build on green-field sites, since the cost of them—if one can get hold of them—is often much less than that of brown-field sites? Did the previous Government ever think about doing something about that?

Mr. Clappison: As the House has already heard, the previous Government signalled to developers that they should try to avoid green belt sites. The House has also heard how very difficult it was to get permission for green belt sites from the previous Government. Indeed, the Opposition are a little troubled that the present Government have already given permission for a significant green belt development in Birmingham.
I return to the issue of Hertfordshire, which is important to me as a Member representing the county. I am concerned about not only the county development but the borough development in my constituency. My local authority first responded to its requirement of 4,600 new homes by issuing a draft local plan that identified three green belt sites. One was a particularly sensitive part of my constituency in Borehamwood—land known as Woodcock Hill north of Barnet lane in Borehamwood— where there are very strong green belt reasons for not allowing development to take place.
There was a significant campaign against development on the site in my constituency. I pay tribute to the Elstree and Borehamwood Green Belt Society and the Woodcock Hill Open Spaces Forever—WHOSE—campaign. They have persuaded the local authority to think again and, in the latest version of the draft local plan, part of the site has been removed—although I regret that part of it is still to be built on.
Unhappily, my local authority is now planning to build on another six green belt sites—building into the open countryside in some cases—against strong green belt considerations, in places such as Cherry Tree lane in Potters Bar and Watford road in Radlett, affecting the village character of Radlett and the green open spaces around Potters Bar. We value our green open spaces in Hertsmere. As hon. Members who have travelled through the area know, it contains the first green spaces on routes out of London.
The issues that I have raised are the responsibility of the local planning authority. Like many others, I have made my representations to it. I want the Government to give a strong signal to the planners, who are deciding how the housing requirement will be met. It is incumbent on the Government to send a clear signal that the green belt needs very strong protection.
I should like a strong restatement from the Minister of the importance of the green belt. One or two recent Government statements, made under the pressure of debate or radio interviews, have not put as strong an emphasis on green belt protection as they might have done. We know that appearing on the "Today" programme can put one under pressure. However, the Minister said in an interview on that programme that the green belt was
up for grabs in the sense that it is always up for grabs. There are planning guidances to say that you can build on green belt in certain circumstances.
The Minister was a little modest in stating the protection that Government policy affords the green belt. Under the previous Government, green belt policy was embodied in planning policy guidance 2, which says not simply that the green belt can be built on in certain circumstances, but:
There is a presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt unless very special circumstances exist which outweigh the harm caused by the development. Proposals in draft plans that would result in releasing land from the green belt must be fully justified. The Government are committed to protecting the green belt and encourage the recycling of land in urban areas wherever possible to meet development needs.
We need a robust re-statement from the Minister of the importance of the green belt.
We also need a commitment from the Government to consider the targets for brown-field development. We have heard about the targets set by the previous Government. In 1995 we set a target of half of all new development taking place on brown-field land. We thought that that needed to be looked at again and revised upwards. We were considering moving up to 60 per cent. The Minister knows that we received good advice from the Council for the Protection of Rural England and from the Round Table on Sustainable Development that as much as 75 per cent. could be achieved.
I ask the new Government to consider that expert advice carefully, particularly that from the round table, which was promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal under the previous Government as a source of good, independent, impartial advice to the Government. If any Government ever needed such impartial advice rather than cheerleading, the present Government do. They should consider that advice, even if it is sometimes uncomfortable, as it was for the previous Government.


I ask the Minister to look carefully at the targets. I know that it may be a little early for a definite reply, but he should give us some indication that he is giving the ideas a fair wind. The green belt is of fundamental importance to my constituency, as it is to the rest of the country, particularly the south-east.

Mr. Christopher Chope: The debate has been a partial re-run of the debate initiated by the Conservatives last week to express concern on behalf of our constituents. In that debate, as today, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) questioned the figures for household projections. He was joined in that today by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills). They are both issuing a serious challenge to their Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) asked whether the Government accepted the projected figures. That was answered in last week's debate by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), who said:
We do not dispute the figures."—[Official Report, 4 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 211.]
Extraordinarily, there seems to be an orchestrated campaign by some Labour Members to undermine those figures. Perhaps the Minister will take a different line from that taken by his Under-Secretary last week.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere issued a plea on behalf of the green belt. Today we have the advantage that the Minister against whom the charges on the green belt are being made will come to the Dispatch Box to answer the debate. I shall not detain the House too long, because we are eager to hear what he has to say about the green belt, and his answer to the charge that he has been playing fast and loose with it.
Our suspicions were increased in last week's debate, because our motion included a charge against the Government of weakening planning controls designed to protect the green belt. That point was not answered in the Government amendment or in the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has said, the Minister's words on the "Today" programme on 30 October have caused considerable suspicion. During that interview he repeatedly and pointedly failed to confirm the strong presumption against building on the green belt, which was the cornerstone of policy under the Conservative Government, who doubled the amount of green belt and dramatically increased its protection.
Recent Government actions have also given rise to concern. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions decided arbitrarily to overturn the recommendation of his independent inspector following a public inquiry on the development of 140 acres of green belt land in Birmingham, near Sutton Coldfield.

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): That is not for housing.

Mr. Chope: Under the Conservative Government, the green belt was sacrosanct, both in respect of housing and

in respect of industrial use. It is amazing that the Minister is suggesting that the green belt is not safe against development for industrial purposes, particularly if an inspector has followed the plan-led system put in place by the Conservatives.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: rose—

Mr. Chope: I am not going to give way, because I hope that the Minister will have a chance to respond to the debate and will take some interventions from Conservative Members, if, as we fear, his responses are not satisfactory.
We are told that the Government are considering the 700 responses to the Green Paper, "Where shall we live?", Perhaps it would have been better titled, "Where will you live?", because most of us know where we wish to live, and we choose to live where we want to live. Some of the comments from Labour Members have shown that there is a danger of telling people what to do. I have chosen to live in the countryside, in a semi-rural area. I do not wish to deprive other people of the chance to do that, but I recognise that we should be concerned about the destruction of the existing environment.
One of the concerns in East Dorset at the moment is that the Government's response to the East Dorset draft plan said that the proposed densities were not high enough. Coupled with the rather vague definition of brown land, that means that people who live in houses with gardens are threatened by substantial infill development that would dramatically alter the character of those areas and would, ironically, increase the pressure for more people to live in the countryside.
I hope that the Minister will tell us when the Government will produce some conclusions and stop the general chit-chat on the issue. The time for action is now.

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I wish to thank most of the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, because it has been very constructive. I shall set out the base line for the debate—the Conservatives' best record, in 18 years, for building on brown-field sites was 40 per cent. Miraculously, within six months of leaving office, they have improved that to 75 per cent. That is definitely gilding the lily.

Mr. McWalter: Will my hon. Friend note that the previous junior Minister at the Department of the Environment, who lost Hemel Hempstead—the area that I now represent—at the election, is now employed by a construction company? Will he also note that intensive research to try to identify brown-field sites in Hertfordshire has proved unavailing?

Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend's comments have been noted by the House and will appear in Hansard.
I first wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on initiating the debate today. As has been mentioned, it was covered in part in the Opposition day debate on rural life.
The housing problem is a major issue facing society today. I would love to come to the Dispatch Box and say that no new houses need to be built, but that is not the


reality. It is not the Government who are changing social patterns—that is happening out there in the real world. The Government have to accept that and respond to it. Many opportunities will arise from the growth in the number of households, and some have been mentioned this morning. Mixed development is an exciting prospect, and I have visited imaginative mixed development schemes in Liverpool and Manchester. The Government will encourage those.
I hope that the White Paper will be supportive of regional development agencies and will address the need to improve economic growth and tackle underperformance in the English regions. I hope that it will also suggest ways to relieve those areas in which economic development is overheating and to bring areas that are under-utilised closer to the average. I hope that the Government will be positive and constructive in the White Paper and the Bill that will be introduced later in the year.
I also hope that hon. Members will contribute to the White Paper on an integrated transport system, which will be important for the environment and for the issues that we are discussing today. While we accept that the market has a role to play in housing, we believe that the Government also have a role to play. Unfortunately, the previous Administration abdicated many of their responsibilities.
The main concerns for my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud are whether we believe the household projections and, more particularly, whether we need to plan for the number of households that they suggest will be formed. He has also, rightly, raised the special concerns of his constituency, where the projections require decisions to identify how and where housing should be provided, not just how much. I will try to address each of those issues in turn.
It will be useful for the House—because there seems to be some misunderstanding—if I explain what the household projections are, how they are arrived at, what they say, and how they are translated into development plans. In many areas of government, we do not have the luxury of looking a long way into the future and trying to plan for the changes that we expect will happen. The household projections do just that. They enable local authorities to estimate in their development plans the additional housing that they should provide in the next 10 years or so.
The first stage in the process involves assessing the population of the country using the census and the regular sub-national population projections, which are updated every two to three years. Migration trends, which have been mentioned by several hon. Members, are taken into account in that assessment, and local authorities are consulted about the accuracy of the trends. The evaluation is a rolling programme that is updated every three to four years. The result is a demographic picture of the country for up to 25 years into the future.
The second stage involves turning the population projections into household projections. That is done by dividing the population into five types of household, and projecting the trends in their formation rates into the future. Figures are available for every county and metropolitan area in the country.

Mr. David Heath: I hope that the Minister will recognise that the problem is not with

the overall methodology but with the application of the methodology to specific areas, especially rural counties such as Gloucestershire—which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned—and my local county of Somerset. We cannot sustain the projected migration levels without employment. We cannot sustain the use of brown-field sites when they do not exist in our rural counties, but building on green-field sites would change our counties' character completely.

Mr. Caborn: I hope to clear that point up later in my speech.
Finally, local authorities meet at regional planning conferences and, using the household projections as their starting point, try to assess how the growth patterns in their region can best be managed. We will examine that issue carefully in the next year, and we will consult about how to strengthen regional planning. We are committed to the plan-led system, although we believe that it needs modernising. Regional areas need strengthening, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) suggested when he mentioned economic development in the regions.

Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government were bequeathed a centralised planning system, in which local people had little opportunity to participate in the fundamental decision making at regional and county structure level? As part of his welcome proposals for reviewing regional planning operations and the possible introduction of regional development agencies, will he consider ways in which local people can have the first instead of the last say in the crucial housing needs and the environmental capacity of the areas that they know so well?

Mr. Caborn: That is an excellent intervention, and we will consider those issues when we consult on the modernisation of the plan-led system. [Interruption.] I say that genuinely, although the hon. Member for Christchurch is sniggering. The Conservatives never offered the people proper consultation. During their 18 years in office, people had to take it or leave it. We do not behave like that. We genuinely consult people and take their point of view into account. I may also say that I will probably take up the offer by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, and launch the consultation on the plan-led system in his constituency.

Mr. Chope: Will the Minister accept that every planning policy guidance note was subject to the most thorough consultation process before it was implemented?

Mr. Caborn: My comments about consultation were in a wider context. The plan-led system exists, and planning guidance will continue to be subjected to consultation among those whom it will affect.
The regional planning conferences decide how much new growth their urban areas can take and broadly how much should go on brown-field sites and how much on green-field sites. If the Secretary of State is happy with their decisions, the advice is formally turned into regional planning guidance by the Government office. Following that, counties and local authorities use the regional planning guidance as the basis for preparing their plans.


At each stage, the projections are again tested and distributed by the authorities. So where all the housing goes eventually—green-field or brown-field sites—is decided by the local authorities. It must be stressed that that is where the decision is taken.
It is unfortunate that the debate still seems to be stuck on the question whether we believe the projections, or whether we need to meet demand. That ground has been examined in detail on numerous occasions, especially in the previous Administration's Green Paper "Household Growth—Where shall we live?", which has been mentioned already today. That document stated in no uncertain terms that large-scale household growth was a fact driven by social, demographic, and cultural changes and that we should address how we can manage the problems, or grasp the opportunities that the growth presents, rather than focusing on "not in my back yard" attitudes.

Mrs. Organ: I understand the principle of using the projection model, but I am concerned about the lack of academic investigation of the social drivers. Where does what is happening in society come into the numbers and the model?

Mr. Caborn: That is factored in in a number of ways. I cannot go into the detail now, but it is in the household projections to the year 2016.
I was about to say that, since the 1920s, every projection for household growth has been an underestimate. Moreover, in 1995 the Environment Committee's inquiry into housing need went through the entire methodology of the way in which such figures are arrived at. It is not for me, from the Dispatch Box, to direct, but all I can suggest is that, if Select Committees wishes to revisit that methodology and the rest of what the Select Committee did in 1995, it is open to it to do so.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: rose—

Mr. Caborn: I cannot give way again. Time is moving on.
Many people still criticise the system, but no one produces viable alternatives. With all due respect, it was a bit of a back-of-the-fag packet calculation by which the figure was brought down this morning from 4.4 million to half a million.
Those who suggest that local authorities should not make adequate provision for projected housing demand often seem to ignore the consequences. People must realise that serious under-provision would mean house price inflation, as demand bids up prices—and the average price of residential development land in England is already £250,000 per acre.
That would mean an increase in the Government's social housing bill, because more people would be unable to afford their own homes, and because land prices would continue to rise. It would even mean an increase in homelessness as some people were forced out of the system altogether, and, with fewer homes to go round, an increase in sharing would become a reality, so many people could be forced into living together against their wishes. Those factors must be considered.
I should make clear the fact that the target for reusing previously developed land remains at 50 per cent., the same as the previous Government's official target. Although the Green Paper floated a figure of 60 per cent. as an aspirational target, and the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development even suggested 75 per cent., we have not changed the target. The key issue, however, is that, whatever recycling target is proposed, by whatever Government, a certain proportion of growth will still need to take place on green-field sites.

Mr. Clappison: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Caborn: For the last time.

Mr. Clappison: Am I to take it that the Minister is not listening to the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development, and is ignoring the consultation and the figure that it gave? He will know that the target of 50 per cent. is only slightly higher than the 47 per cent. that was achieved in 1992. Will he think carefully about giving a lead for urban regeneration and brown-field development by setting a target?

Mr. Caborn: I can set targets, but if targets are not realistic, it is stupid for Governments to set them. I have set a target of 50 per cent. and if we can achieve that, and more, I should welcome the fact. If we could get 100 per cent. of development on brown-field sites, I would welcome that—but all the evidence from the previous Administration, as well as our present advice, suggests that it is not achievable.
What I have said so far is very general. What does it mean for local areas, for local people in Stroud and the rest of Gloucestershire? As my hon. Friend will know from his time as a Stroud district councillor, Gloucestershire county council is reviewing its structure plan. In that process, it has to take as its starting point the housing requirement figure agreed and published in the regional planning guidance for the south-west. That figure is 53,000 additional dwellings between 1991 and 2011. It was based on the previous set of household projections, not those issued in 1995, which provide the basis for the 4.4 million additional households.
The consultation draft Gloucestershire structure plan was published in May 1996. It accepted the regional planning guidance figure of 53,000, and allocated 8,900 additional dwellings to Stroud for the period 1991 to 2011.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: rose—

Mr. Caborn: No, I cannot give way, because if I do I shall not be able to get through my speech, and hon. Members have already asked me to answer some of the questions.

Mr. Chope: Will the Minister get to the green belt?

Mr. Caborn: I shall deal with that, too.
Following its consideration of the responses to the draft plan, Gloucestershire county council does not intend to proceed further with it. I understand that it is now in the process of preparing a new plan, which it intends to place on deposit for public consultation on 12 January. That


plan will be subject to scrutiny at an examination in public, which the council intends to hold next June. That will give everyone concerned about its content an opportunity to question the county's proposals.
Stroud district published a local plan consultation document last July, which accepted the housing requirements in the draft structure plan. After taking account of houses built since 1991, existing allocations and an allowance for windfall sites, the council identifies a need to find land for a further 3,800 new dwellings between now and 2011.
The consultation draft considers ways in which the requirement could be met, and identifies 12 potential housing sites. I understand that the largest of those, covering about 200 acres in an area of outstanding natural beauty to the north of Stroud, in the Painswick valley, has been very controversial locally. My officials in the Government office for the south-west have commented that the consultation paper did not consider how the proposed development in the Painswick valley could be reconciled with the objectives of designating areas of outstanding natural beauty; nor did it provide any local justification that might override the national importance of the designation.
I understand that the district council intends to publish a deposit version of the plan next summer, so my hon. Friend and his constituents will have a further opportunity to make their views known. The district council will have an opportunity to reconsider its proposals, and if it does not, objectors have the right to debate the issue before an inspector at the local plan inquiry. That is a good illustration of the process of checks and balances.
The household projections feed into the consideration of housing requirements in regional planning guidance, which, after debate at the regional level, allocates housing requirement figures to the counties. The counties then propose how much housing should be provided for in their areas by district, and that is tested at the examination in public into the structure plans. The structure plan figures are then further tested in the course of producing the district-wide local plans through public consultation, and ultimately at the local plan inquiry. That also shows that it is for local authorities to determine how and where new housing should go.
The new housing creates both problems and opportunities. District councils cannot simply decide which field should be developed next, or what sites can be found for redevelopment. The need to look ahead to 2011 ensures that they must address the question of what

will prove the most suitable and sustainable pattern of development. The choices must be local, unless there is direct conflict with national policy. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud would agree that is how things should be.
I now come to the question that the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked about urbanisation. The urbanisation projections should be put into perspective. The most recent projections suggest that the additional housing from 1991 to 2016 would mean only about an extra 1.3 per cent. of the whole of England being urbanised by 2016, bringing urbanisation to a total of 11.9 per cent. It is on that 11.9 per cent. that 88 per cent. of the population would live. That hardly sounds like the concreting over of the countryside that some Members would have us believe is taking place. There would still be as much green belt as urban land.
There is growing concern about the green belt, but let me put that into perspective. The green belt has doubled in area over the past 20 years, whereas the amount of land in urban use has increased by just over 10 per cent. in the same period.
Four times as much land has been added to the green belt over the past 20 years as we expect to urbanise over the next 20 years. The policy on green belts, however, has not changed. It is in PPG2: there is a presumption against inappropriate development in green belts. However, local authorities have always been able to make changes to the boundaries of green belts through the development plan process. That allows for public participation. If local people consider that the most suitable approach, we must think carefully before intervening.
Overall, we have very tight controls on development in this country, with 35 per cent. of our land area designated, as areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks, sites of special scientific interest or other special protection areas. In addition, more than 15 per cent. of land is protected as high-grade agricultural land. The countryside, we believe, is not unprotected.
The household projections are at present the only logical starting point for calculating the housing requirements in regional planning guidance and subsequently in development plans. However, they are only projections, incorporating our best understanding of recent social and demographic trends, including migration. They operate on a rolling basis, and can be challenged by local people before they are put into practice.

Traffic Lights (Left Turns)

Sir Michael Spicer: Turning right on red with caution is a practice that has been successfully adopted in the United States for about 15 years; so successfully that its application has spread from state to state, and, I believe, now applies in every state in the Union. That is in a country that has the best traffic accident record in the world.
Allowing right turns on red in the United States has greatly increased traffic flows, not least for road-based public transport. Why not try it here, in the form of a "turning left on red with caution" policy? As in the United States, the responsibility for making the manoeuvre safely would rest with the driver, who would often face an identical situation to the one in which he has to turn left at a T-junction with no lights. I see no reason why the British motorist should be less able to cope than his American or Canadian counterpart, or, for that matter, the driver in New Zealand, where the introduction of the practice is being considered.
The practice would not be universal, as there would be intersections at which it would be inappropriate; those would be clearly marked, as they are in the United States. Traffic at certain times of the day, in some of our big towns and cities, has reached near-crisis proportions; there are times when it comes to a complete standstill. That hits public road transport especially hard.
A recent survey by the Department of Transport in central London showed that, in 1996, an average journey of 1.7 miles took 18 minutes by bicycle, but 38 minutes by bus—more than twice as long. The time spent on the bus had increased by three minutes since 1993. I know that bicycling to work is considered green and therefore the height of fashion, but bicycling in big cities, with all its attendant safety risks, as against using public road transport, cannot sensibly be the Government's preferred option—unless they want our cities to become like Chinese cities.

Mr. Alan Clark: In his interesting dissertation on traffic conditions in cities, my hon. Friend may care to consider the propensity, indeed the habitual practice, of some cyclists of using the pavement, which is the proper precinct for pedestrians.

Sir Michael Spicer: That is an interesting thought.
One of the objectives of transport policy, even though it may not be totally fashionable with the Government at the moment, must be to speed up traffic flows. My suggestion is modest, and cannot compare in importance to measures that might be introduced for road pricing, for instance. Because it works elsewhere, turning left on red merits the Minister's attention. I ask her not for a definitive answer, but to agree to a study, preferably by the Road Transport Laboratory at Crowthorne, and to report back to the House on it.
There are clearly problems with the idea, especially where pedestrians are concerned, but they have not proved insurmountable in America, which has higher road safety standards than any comparable country. In this context, America includes Canada, with the exception of Quebec. It cannot be right for the present congestion, especially in

our cities and towns, to continue. The clogging of inner-city roads has reached the point at which it is bad for safety, bad for health and bad for the economy.
My suggestion is offered modestly and undogmatically. If, after studying the matter, the Minister does not like it, she will have to come up with something better—something that I sincerely trust will not involve a dictatorial ban on the private motorist.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) on raising a particularly interesting question. Making the best use of the road network will be an important part of our integrated transport policy, but best does not necessarily mean maximising capacity for cars and lorries. We must take account of the needs of all road users, as well as our environmental and safety objectives.
Managing traffic at road junctions, which are often the main constraints and conflict points, especially in towns and cities, will be one of the key elements in any local transport strategy, and traffic signals are one of a range of tools available to do that. Each junction needs to be carefully considered; that is particularly important in areas where there is usually a wide range of competing demands from pedestrians, cyclists, motor cyclists, buses, taxis, vans, lorries and cars.
The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) talked about cycling on pavements. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire is aware that such a practice is illegal unless local authorities have designated specific cycle routes on especially wide pavements.
My Department publishes advice on highway and junction design that includes the geometric design of junctions and the design of traffic signals and pedestrian crossings. Traffic signals are an effective means of helping to ration road space. As we try to do more, and particularly when local highway authorities are aiming to provide better facilities for pedestrians, signal control strategies and the equipment that goes with them will become more complex.
I speak only in general terms; what is right for an individual site will be a matter for the highway authority concerned, which will need to consider all the characteristics of the site and the traffic demands.
Authorities will increasingly consider how to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, who do not always receive a good, or indeed fair, deal in the allocation of time or space at junctions and on the highway generally. Initiatives are under way to improve conditions for cycling and walking, both of which have a part to play in helping to reduce car dependency. I chair the national cycling forum and the walking steering group, both of which are addressing these issues.

Mr. Tom Brake: If the Minister's Department is to consider the possibility of cars turning left at traffic lights, could it also consider the possibility of cyclists doing the same?

Ms Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I have as yet given no indication as


to the Government's response to the proposals made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. I shall come to that later.
My Department has promoted the use of new signalling systems, and continues to sponsor research to see how they can be developed to deal with increasingly complicated traffic movements. Green arrow signals are widely used to control the movement of separate traffic streams, and they work well. For example, they allow left and right turns to be signalled to go at different times. The more efficient use of junctions and can sometimes be the key to providing protected crossings for pedestrians.
Where junctions become very complex, a multitude of traffic signal heads may become confusing. We are working with local authorities to evaluate whether amber arrows may be helpful to drivers. At sites with a number of different green arrow signalled movements, some drivers may wrongly anticipate the next signal in the sequence. Amber arrow signals may help. If the trials prove promising, we could prepare advice on when and where their wider use would be appropriate.
It is often suggested that we should adopt the practice of allowing drivers to make left turns at red traffic signals if their exit is clear—a practice often used, as the hon. Member for West Worcestershire stated, in the United States of America, although there, as he said, it is right turn on red. I believe that it was Woody Allen who said that the sole cultural contribution made by the state of California to the United States of America was the privilege of turning right on a red light.
There are significant differences between traffic signal operation here and in the USA. There, traffic signals tend to operate in a fixed-time manner, which can lead to traffic waiting at signals when there is no conflicting traffic movement. The majority of traffic signals in the United Kingdom are vehicle-actuated, where the green period is varied automatically with the traffic flow. This reduces unnecessary delays and the need to introduce uncontrolled turns.
One effect of vehicle-actuated signals and relatively short signal stages is that traffic moves through junctions in blocks. These blocks crossing the junction would prevent left-turning traffic from moving until given a green light in any case, and there would be only a small improvement, at best, in the efficiency of the junction.
Opportunities to turn left are further limited when, as in much of the United Kingdom, road widths preclude separate left-turn lanes, and left-turn traffic has to wait behind that going straight on. Another factor is visibility for turning traffic. Regrettably, many junctions here have poor visibility because of existing buildings and the junction geometry.
Safety must be a key consideration, so positive signalling is used. Vehicles may not proceed without a green light. This is vital where pedestrians may be crossing. Pedestrian facilities are often provided at signal-controlled junctions, and may include audible and tactile indicators for use by people with visual disabilities. Pedestrians are not given a signal to cross unless a red signal has been given to all vehicles that could pass or turn through that crossing point. This protection for pedestrians would be compromised by allowing left-turning vehicles to pass a red signal.
The Government have a clear commitment to promote the independent mobility of disabled people, including those who are blind or partially sighted. One of the key

aspects of independence is giving blind people the confidence to move with safety within the urban environment.
There is a long tradition in the United Kingdom of audible and tactile signals at road crossings which tell a blind person when it is safe to cross. This is possible only when all traffic has been signalled to stop. It is out of the question to consider a situation in which the message to a blind person would have to be, "It's probably okay to cross, but there might be traffic turning across you as you do."
It is worth noting that, in the USA, where a right turn on red is a long-established custom, the needs of blind people have not been given the priority that they have in this country. Studies in the mid-1970s, in six states where turning right on red was introduced, showed, despite the comment of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, increases in accidents ranging from 20 per cent. to 110 per cent. Vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists' groups showed the greatest increase.
We have a system of traffic control in this country that works well. It is consistent, well understood and obeyed. It is as good as or better than that in use anywhere else, and we want to keep it that way.

Sir Michael Spicer: The Minister just said the system of traffic control worked well. By what criteria does she judge whether a traffic system works well? Clearly, if all the traffic has come to a stop in part of a big city, and part of that is caused by the traffic light system, it is not working well.

Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two issues here. Traffic jams are not occasioned by poor signalling or a system of signalling. They are often caused because there are far too many cars on roads that were not built to accommodate them. That is why the Government intend to introduce an integrated transport strategy, whereby there will be alternatives to what is seen to be an over-dependence on the private car. I do not think that we would automatically reduce traffic jams by making major changes to signalling systems that meet the needs of a wide range of road users. As I say, the primary consideration must be safety.
Although we wish to make improvements to the efficiency and flexibility of traffic control, they must not be at the expense of safety, especially for the more vulnerable groups of road users. We should, of course, always be open to new ideas, and should look at what others do to see if we can learn from them, but it is important that we are careful to evaluate proposed changes to see that they do not compromise our objectives.
In the case of turning left through red traffic lights, we have looked at the proposal, but have concluded that the disbenefits to pedestrians, to blind and partially-sighted pedestrians especially, more than outweigh any gains that might be achieved for vehicles.

Sir Michael Spicer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot address the House again.

Hatfield Peverel to Witham (Link Road)

Mr. Alan Hurst: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on this proposed road. Before I proceed, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on her appointment. I say that not out of sycophancy but because she was good enough to visit my constituency before 1 May and before it obtained most-favoured status.
I imagine that most hon. Members are familiar with the Al2. It is the trunk road that runs from the Southend arterial Al27 in south Essex north-east through Essex and thence to East Anglia. It is a major carrier of vehicles and has traditionally so been. It has obviously changed over the years. Elderly folk in my constituency are proud to show me photographs showing their grandparents playing in the street that was then the Al2. If anyone did that now, they would not last more than 15 seconds.
The original Al2 meandered through the towns and villages of Essex, in particular Hatfield Peverel, Witham and Kelvedon, which are on the section with which I am concerned. That was the position until the early 1960s, when improvements began to be made. Even at that time, the road was heavily congested. One can remember as a child being taken for outings to the east coast and being stuck in Hatfield Peverel, Witham or Kelvedon or one or another of the villages along the road.
From the 1960s onwards, dual carriageways were constructed. The section to which I have referred was affected by two bypasses in 1965. When the Hatfield Peverel and Witham dual carriageway bypasses were constructed, the volume of traffic per day was some 21,000 vehicles. The comparative figure for 1996 is 75,000 vehicles per day on that section—three and a half times greater than the volume of traffic for which the road was constructed some 30 years ago.
The problem is not merely one of volume. The approach to Hatfield Peverel on the Al2 is singularly hazardous. Some time after 1965, the Chelmsford section running north-east towards Hatfield Peverel was constructed in three lanes, but the three-lane section ends just short of Hatfield Peverel and thereafter the road goes back to two lanes by way of a defile through the village and out the other side. All of us are aware of the hazards of a road changing from three lanes to two: vehicles bunch together and there is often high-speed and erratic crossing of lanes, and this certainly occurs on the Al2 at that point. Indeed, the problem is aggravated by the fact that the vehicles accelerate: the approach to the two-lane section is downhill, thus increasing the speed of vehicles approaching Hatfield Peverel.
Once through Hatfield Peverel, the Al2 is joined by a slip road out of the village itself. That slip road serves not only village residents, but those coming from Maldon and the Dengie peninsula to the east in order either to join the Al2 or to pass on to Witham and Braintree. As the A 12 approaches that slip road, it is coming up a hill and around a bend and the visibility of the entrance to the slip road is extremely obscured for vehicles travelling on the major trunk road, the Al2.
Those brave enough to enter the Al2 from the Hatfield Peverel slip road running north-east face a downhill short section with a low level of visibility to traffic coming

from behind. Indeed, for the nervous or inexperienced motorist, it is a junction to be avoided. At busy times of day, it is almost impossible to enter the Al2 from the Hatfield Peverel slip road because of the speed of traffic and the lack of visibility of oncoming vehicles.

Mr. John Whittingdale: I strongly endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. He is right to say that many of my Maldon constituents use the road to Hatfield Peverel to reach the Al2, but is he aware that Maldon continues to grow, and that congestion at Danbury is forcing more people to reach the Al2 via Hatfield Peverel? The problem which he describes is therefore likely to increase in coming years.

Mr. Hurst: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The population of the old Maldon division, which was formerly part of my constituency, has increased considerably over the past 30 years, and there are proposals that that growth should continue.
Over the past three years, there have been 50 personal injury accidents on the 2 km section of dual carriageway. That number includes five fatalities: it is a tragic coincidence that, today, an inquest is being held in the county town of Chelmsford into the most recent fatality, which occurred earlier this year. The statistic for the accident rate is 0.4 personal injury accidents per million vehicle kilometres; I am advised that that is 50 per cent. higher than the national A road rate, and more than three times the national rate for dual carriageways.
Essex county council, of which I am honoured to remain a member for a few months, has been concerned at the dangers presented by the Al2 Hatfield Peverel to Witham section and has put at the top of its priority list the link road proposal to which I shall come shortly. I attended a meeting of the highways committee held earlier in the month, at which the proposal was placed in the priority category, above improvements to the Mil in west Essex.
I now turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) about population growth. In the 1960s, Witham was designated to receive industrial development linked with population growth, predominantly from east London. Over 20 years, until the 1980s, its population increased greatly, and the growth continues to the present day, especially on the south side of the town. An additional development is planned for the south side: known as the Maltings Lane development, it will add a further 800 dwellings.
It is significant that a debate earlier this morning dealt with housing allocation, because the Essex structure plan would site a further 4,000 dwellings, over and above those already allocated, near the Witham-Hatfield Peverel-Kelvedon section of the Al2. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is substantial growth in the Maldon area and in parts of Danbury and Chelmsford, which will lead to increased use of the intersections on to the A12.
Turning to local people's response, a consultation exercise was carried out by Essex county council on options and proposals for improvement by way of a link road. The exercise took a fairly wide form—in particular, an exhibition at Hatfield Peverel village hall in summer 1996 ran for some time and attracted many visitors who gave their preferences. The current favoured scheme is for


a road to run parallel on the north-east side of Hatfield Peverel to link up with the intersection at Witham. It will have limited or no environmental disadvantages and will ensure that all local traffic—not only from Hatfield Peverel, but from the Maldon, Dengie and Chelmsford areas—can be routed without entering the Al2 at all. If local traffic is removed from the Al2, that has obvious advantages, not only for local residents, but for those travelling on the Al2 who are at risk from those seeking access to the A12 dual carriageway, whether carefully or otherwise.
The proposal is supported by the county council and by Hatfield Peverel parish council, Witham town council and Braintree district council. I should not be surprised to find that it is supported by district councils and parish councils in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford. I understand that the current anticipated cost of the limited scheme now favoured by the county council is between £2.2 million and £2.4 million. A cost-benefit analysis shows that 88 per cent. of the scheme benefits would accrue to the trunk road. I claim no great expertise in such calculations, but those who advise me say that that is a high rating.
In comparison with other road improvement schemes, the cost of the link is comparatively modest. I should be pleased if the Minister would give favourable consideration to the link being given high priority as a reasonable scheme. I am sure that that would give great benefit to residents of Hatfield Peverel, Witham and beyond.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on securing this debate and thank him for his generosity in affording the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) an intervention. Clearly, there is cross-party unity on many of the issues on which my hon. Friend touched. I also thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me to the Government Front Bench. I assure him that compliments in this place are so rare that there is never a danger of anyone being accused of sycophancy.
My hon. Friend has devoted a good deal of effort and time to drawing the attention of my noble Friend the Minister for Roads to the problems on the A12 and the spate of recent mortalities. I feel sure that the whole House offers its sympathy to my hon. Friend and its condolences to his constituents. My noble Friend was particularly saddened to read a letter from Nancy Mesher, one of my hon. Friend's constituents, who suffered the tragic loss of her mother and young brother in a road accident. In her letter, Nancy gave details of the terrible tragedy that robbed her of her mother and brother, and was particularly concerned about what seemed to her to be a lack of adequate signing which occasioned her personal tragedy.
My noble Friend was particularly moved by the fact that Nancy had put aside her personal tragedy and written to my noble Friend putting forward ideas which she hoped would ensure that no other family would have to go through the grievous experience that she had lived through. My noble Friend wrote to Nancy and was able to tell her that Essex county council had now completed improvements to the signing and road markings,

which change the priority at the Duke of Wellington junction opposite the bridge over the Al2 so that north bound drivers are guided more clearly to the through route. Other improvements have been made, such as a waiting restriction and cross-hatching on the County road, beyond the end of the slip road, to prevent vehicles from parking on the road and obscuring the signs that have also now been installed.
My noble Friend the Minister for Roads was so moved by the thought of Nancy writing to try to improve road safety when she must be still grieving for her own terrible loss that she immediately agreed to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree and a deputation of Essex county councillors to discuss the safety issues relating to that road. I believe that the meeting is to take place very soon.
I understand my hon. Friend's desire for an early decision on the scheme, but it may help the House if I put it into the context of the roads review and how that review fits into the overall thrust of the Government's transport policies. Our work to develop an integrated transport policy provides the immediate context for the roads review. The backdrop to that fundamental review is a candid recognition that we cannot carry on as at present. The predicted growth of traffic and the consequent congestion are unsustainable; the environmental, economic and social implications are simply unacceptable. The appropriate response, however, cannot be simply to hack away once again at the roads programme without taking any other action.
We need to take a much broader view, looking at all modes, using broadly based criteria to assess schemes. One of the encouraging aspects of that hugely ambitious task is the degree to which there is agreement that we need to change. We need to look at the role of the motor vehicle in providing mobility in a more integrated transport system, which makes the best use of the contribution that each mode can make, ensures that all options are considered on a basis that is fair and is seen to be fair, takes safety, environmental, economic, accessibility and integration considerations into account from the outset—and does so in a way in which we can all have confidence and which, above all, is sustainable.
That is the context for our roads review. It is an integral part of our integrated transport policy work. It is about the role that trunk roads should play alongside other modes in an integrated and sustainable transport policy.
An issue that looms largest in the roads review is congestion. On current predictions, if we do nothing, in 20 years' time there will be roughly half as much traffic again on our roads. We could allow increasing congestion to ration road space, but the costs to industry, the environment and society more generally would be unacceptable. That leaves us with three broad options: to make better use of the existing infrastructure; to manage demand; or to provide new infrastructure.
Making best use of the existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice. It has been provided at substantial cost, in both financial and environmental terms, and we must make the best use of that investment. Much work is going on, looking at old and new technologies, on local roads and on the motorway and trunk road network, to make better use of the network. A number of measures can also bring safety benefits, and we shall need to ensure that those are given proper priority, but we need to be


realistic about what the various options for making better use of the network can truly deliver. We must also look seriously at other harder options: managing demand and providing new infrastructure.
Managing demand is a vast topic which cuts across all modes. It encompasses reducing the need to travel through land use planning and by changing how we live, work and enjoy our leisure time. It must include an assessment of the extent to which a shift to other modes can be encouraged. Inevitably, it includes controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms—unpopular though they may be.
It includes both carrots and sticks. It provides carrots in terms of providing attractive public transport alternatives; safe and unpolluted routes for walking and cycling; easy access to public transport and good interchanges between different public transport services. It provides sticks in terms of measures, such as parking restraints, that make car use less attractive. Many local authorities are seeking, through integrated transport packages, to combine measures in that way so that mobility is maintained but the adverse consequence of that mobility is reduced.
The Highways Agency's programme of small safety schemes is continuing and is not being put on hold pending the outcome of the roads review, but other new major construction is under review. Providing new infrastructure is a difficult option, both financially and in terms of its possible impact on the environment. In some cases, a new or widened road may turn out to be the only option, but our starting point is that we shall not proceed with major new trunk road infrastructure unless we are satisfied that there is no better alternative. Even then, difficult choices will have to be made within the limited resources available.
There is no substitute for rigorous case-by-case examination of the options. That is what we have set about in our consultation exercise. In addition, my noble

Friend the Minister for Roads recently wrote to all Members of Parliament inviting them to meetings on a regional basis. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to comment on schemes and help Ministers assess the outcome of the consultation before we take any decisions.
I shall now deal with the specifics of my hon. Friend's case for a link road between Hatfield Peverel and Witham. The Al2 trunk road links east London with Chelmsford, Colchester, Ipswich and the east coast ports of Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. Traffic is very heavy towards London, with the section between Hatfield Peverel and Witham carrying more than 80,000 vehicles a day.
Although the Al2 is dual carriageway between the M25 and Ipswich, the standard varies between dual two and dual three lanes. In 1990, there were nine schemes for bypasses or widening of the A12 in the national programme, one of which—Gorleston relief road—was constructed in 1993. The list included the Al2 between Hatfield Peverel and Marks Tey. In the 1994 review, one scheme—Saxmundham bypass dualling—was withdrawn and others rationalised. In that review, all the schemes between the M25 and Ipswich were given priority two status, which means that they remained in the programme but priority one schemes had first call on available funds.
In November 1995, three schemes—a Blythburgh bypass, a Kessingland to Pleasurewood road and widening of the Chelmsford bypass—were withdrawn from the programme. The remaining six schemes were put into the longer-term programme, as they were judged to have lower national priority. Preparation work was suspended, to be resumed when the programme rolled forward. In November 1996, however, all the remaining schemes for improvement of the A12 were withdrawn.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the Essex transport issues to the attention of the House. I am sure that he will appreciate that, until the roads review has been completed, I cannot tell him what priority the scheme that he advocates can expect to be given in a world of developing policy and increasingly heavy demands on the public purse, but I can guarantee close scrutiny.

Planning (Maidenhead)

Mrs. Theresa May: I am grateful for the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to raise a number of planning issues that are of particular concern to my constituents in Maidenhead, but which will have an echo across the country, because they are general issues with which many hon. Members will have experienced problems in their constituencies. I hope that, as I am raising general issues, the Minister will respond positively.
Many of my constituents feel under siege from developers, especially developers who will not take no for an answer. The problem of multiple applications is very much alive in my constituency. There are two aspects to the problem, which I shall illustrate by quoting two examples.
The first is Badnell's tip in Maidenhead. It is a former waste tip site. Later, I shall speak about contaminated land. Badnell's tip has been the subject of a planning application for development. The residents opposed the application, the council turned it down, the matter went to public inquiry, the appeal was turned down, and now the process is starting again with another development application, which the residents continue to oppose and the council has refused. The public inquiry finished over the summer and we now await the inspector's decision.
My constituents ask why they should have to go through the process all over again. There is a cost to local residents in terms of their worry about what might happen to the site, there is a cost in overall terms to the town, because we do not know whether a potentially significant development will proceed, and there is a cost to the council tax payers as the council has to fight another public inquiry. The Badnell's tip public inquiry cost the local borough council about £70,000.
Residents are worried that, if they are constantly fighting development applications, eventually something will give and an application that might otherwise have been refused will be given permission.
The problem arises in a different way in another issue in my constituency—the development of motorway service areas. There are currently eight applications for the development of a motorway service area at junction 8/9 on the M4 or between junction 8/9 and junction 10. We have just had a public inquiry on three of those applications, and the others are at various stages of the planning process. They affect not only my constituency, but the constituencies of Windsor and Bracknell.
Once again, residents find that they must fight constantly to defend their local environment. They are particularly concerned because, when the planning inspector gave approval for the development of a motorway service area at Reading, which is the first MSA down the M4 from Heston, he said in his judgment that he did not consider that there was any need for a motorway service area between Reading and Heston, yet there are eight applications on the stocks for just such an MSA.
Constituents ask why the planning process can put them through all that anxiety and the battle to save their environment, when a decision from a planning inspector suggests that there may be no need for the development in that stretch of road.
I hope that the Government will examine the issue of multiple applications and look perhaps at the imposition of time limits and at the possibility that all applications for a given type of development such as an MSA are submitted within a given time and considered in one block, instead of the rolling process and the constant need to fight. I hope that the Government will consider the problem sympathetically and find a way of resolving it, as it does not affect my constituency alone.
I mentioned Badnell's tip and the issue of contaminated land. Badnell's tip was a waste tip in the times when people dumped waste without giving the matter much thought. A local builder tells the story of having been down to the site many years ago and seen some rather nice glass bottles. He did not know what was in them, but fortunately someone else at the site suggested that he should not take the bottles away, as they were full of cyanide. There is certainly cyanide and asbestos in the tip, but no one is quite sure what else is present on the Badnell's tip site. Local residents are, naturally, extremely concerned.
At present there is no problem. The site is open space and is undisturbed, but local people are worried about what might happen if development permission is given and the site is disturbed by a developer. The potential problems arising from the site are illustrated by the fact that when the inspector at the recent planning inquiry went to look at the site, he wore a gas mask—a precaution that I did not take when I visited the site recently with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the shadow spokesman on planning and local government matters.
Will the Government examine the issue of contaminated land? In 1990, the Select Committee on the Environment proposed that local authorities should have a duty to compile registers of contaminated land. That was originally in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, but was repealed in the Environment Act 1995. I understand why the Government did that, but I question whether the decision was correct. I hope that the Government will consider instituting registers of contaminated land, and will review the powers of local authorities and the Environment Agency, to help with the clearing up of such sites.
Another relevant site in my constituency is Sandford farm in Woodley. I sometimes say that I am the Member of Parliament for tips—I will not say that I am the rubbish Member of Parliament, which would have an entirely different connotation. There has been a problem with the tip at Sandford farm. In the summer of 1996, the district council told local residents that they should not hold barbecues in their gardens because of the methane escaping from the site, which created the risk of explosions.
There is the question whether the local authority has the finance or the power to clean up that site, and what role the Environment Agency has in the matter. I ask the Minister to examine the issue. There is an application from a developer offering to clear up the site, if development permission were granted. Local residents are concerned that a development which might otherwise not be acceptable would be allowed through because it provided an easy option for dealing with the problem of contaminated land. That applies to both Badnell's tip and Sandford farm.


The third issue is the guidance given to local authorities on the aspects that they may take into material consideration when considering planning applications. Again, I shall illustrate the problem with an example from my constituency. I refer to the East Park farm development at Charvil where, following a public inquiry, 232 houses—family homes—are being built on the edge of the village, which has no school and only one small shop. The children from those homes will have to travel into a nearby village, with all the resulting congestion problems on the roads.
Local authorities should be required to take more notice of the more general infrastructure features when they consider planning applications for significant development, such as a housing development of that size. Such considerations include schools and whether the local water supply can cope with the number of houses to be built on a site. As I understand it, there is no statutory requirement to consult water companies about whether the water supply will cope with increased demand. Local authorities should examine those issues more carefully when considering such developments. They should ask whether a village can cope with a significant development on its doorstep.
I have raised three issues: multiple applications in the planning process, contaminated land, and the consideration of infrastructure issues. There is considerable interest in this Adjournment debate in my constituency—particularly because of the Badnell's tip issue—and the story made the front page of the Maidenhead Advertiser. That is a significant local paper to which I have referred in the House previously. Local residents are very interested in the outcome of the debate and in the Minister's response. They hope that, because the issues facing Maidenhead are also experienced up and down the country, the Government will consider them sympathetically. I hope that the Minister will respond positively.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on her extremely fluent presentation of issues relating to several sites in her constituency, which have clearly raised concerns locally. She highlighted local interest in the debate, and I only hope that those who read the Maidenhead Advertiser do not pick up on her reference to herself as the "Member of Parliament for tips"—I cannot think of a less appropriate description.
Before I respond to the specific issues that the hon. Lady raised, I shall put them into context. The Government retain a firm commitment to achieving sustainable development through a plan-led system. We believe this to be the most effective way of reconciling the demands for land for development and the need to protect the environment. The plan-led system has a vital role to play in identifying and providing sites for necessary development in locations that do not compromise the needs of future generations. It provides greater certainty for developers and business, and an appropriate framework for them to take investment decisions. At the same time—and perhaps more

important—it allows anyone with an interest to be involved in shaping the policies that determine future decisions on land use. The system must be open and accountable.
We have a well-established system of statutory development plans, and we have no proposals for changing those basic arrangements. However, if the system is to survive, it must be made more efficient. A number of proposals for changes to the way in which local plans and unitary development plans are prepared and adopted were put forward by our predecessors last January. I certainly share their view that the current procedures are too cumbersome.
Some commentators have suggested that the Government are interested only in speed and in getting plans adopted as soon as possible—even if that is to the detriment of public involvement in the plan-making process and the quality of the end product. That is not the case. The Government are committed to proper public involvement in the plan-making process and to achieving a high-quality plan.
We have considered the responses to consultation on the issue initiated by the previous Government, and we intend to implement the changes to procedures related to the deposit stage, designed to encourage local planning authorities to make real efforts to negotiate with objectors and thereby resolve objections before plans reach the inquiry. There is certainly some scope for improving inquiry procedures, possibly involving the introduction of procedural rules, and we shall pursue measures to reduce the time spent on modifications after the inquiry. We hope that we can achieve a position where modifications become the exception rather than the rule.
On the other hand, we have decided not to pursue changes that would reduce the rights of people to be involved in the preparation of development plans. Similarly, we have decided not to take forward the previous Government's proposal that the recommendations in the report on the public local inquiry into a plan should be made binding on the local authority. We consider it important that the authority should remain accountable for the planning policies adopted in its area. Some of the changes can be taken forward by the Government, and we hope to issue consultation revisions to the development plan regulations and PPG12 before the new year.
We are also actively looking at ways of improving both the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning appeals system. We want to speed up the handling of appeals and deliver quicker decisions. I say that with some feeling, having had to deal with a large number of planning appeals over the past few months—some of which have been outstanding for far too long. Many individuals and organisations have recently given their views on a number of suggestions to speed up the planning appeals process. That is very helpful, and we aim to build on those suggestions.
The importance of the issues and the need to get the changes right are reflected in the variety and volume of comments: more than 250 responses have been received. The message is positive overall—although some reservations were expressed. Most respondents welcomed the main objective of improving speed and efficiency while retaining the essential elements of fairness, openness and impartiality. We have been giving careful


thought to all the responses, but have not yet reached any final conclusions about future changes. Clearly, a number of the proposals are capable of being implemented in the short term either administratively or through secondary legislation but, where necessary, we do not rule out the possibility of primary legislation if and when the opportunity arises.
Having established the context, I come to the specific issues raised by the hon. Lady. I start with Badnell's tip, which is located behind homes in Blackamore lane to the north of Maidenhead town centre. The hon. Lady referred to her constituents' concerns about the number of planning applications that have been made for the site over the years. While the site has been subject to a number of applications, not all have gone to determination. Applications on the site for a hotel and for a football ground were withdrawn. The site was subject to retail applications in 1992–93, but they were also withdrawn. In the past 10 years, I understand that there have been only two appeals on the site.
The site was allocated in the local plan for housing in the 1970s. A local plan inquiry was held in 1995–96. The inspector came down against proposals for housing—even though that is what the local authority suggested—because he was not satisfied at the time about the remediation measures necessary to deal with the contamination to which the hon. Lady referred. I was slightly alarmed to hear that an inspector wandered around the site wearing a gas mask, and I am delighted that the hon. Lady felt sufficiently confident to visit the site without taking such measures.
That confidence is obviously shared by the local authority, which has undertaken further studies aimed at solving the contamination issue. It proposes to use the site for about 120 dwellings, and views it as an urban brown-field site. Because of the very real pressures for housing throughout the south-east, not just in Maidenhead, it is important—and very much part of the Government' s thinking—that, where appropriate, brown-field sites should be used for housing in order to avoid placing unnecessary pressure on the green belt and the countryside.
I also understand that there are currently proposals by the Michael Shanly Group for an edge-of-town superstore on the site. We understand that remediation is required to make the site suitable for such development and that the proposals have been subject to considerable local controversy. An appeal was lodged against non-determination of permission by the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and a public inquiry was held. The many concerns raised at the inquiry will, of course, be fully considered by the inspector in reaching his decision. The inspector's report is awaited by the local planning authority.
As the decision is still under consideration, I am sure that the hon. Lady will understand that I cannot discuss the details of the proposals. The Secretary of State and Ministers in the Department have a quasi-judicial capacity in the matter. I hope that my remarks have at least put the issues in context.
I come now to the implications for PPG6 with regard to town centres and retail developments. There are several general concerns in that area. The Government reaffirm the objectives of the current planning policy guidance in PPG6 on town centres and retail developments.

The guidance seeks to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of our existing city, town and district centres. That will remain a key pillar of Government policy.
We are also keen to ensure that, where possible, development is planned in a manner that is consistent with the maintenance and defence of the environment. Sustainability issues are at the forefront of the Government's approach. When we consider the kind of development that the hon. Lady mentioned towards the end of her speech—I apologise for forgetting the precise location to which she referred, involving the proposal for a large development at the edge of a village—issues such as transport, infrastructure, how the development would relate to the existing settlement, and whether there are adequate water supplies and other facilities must be material considerations if we are to contemplate such developments from the point of view of sustainability.
On the issue of contaminated land, which the hon. Lady rightly highlighted, local authorities were required to draw up registers under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The previous Government withdrew their proposals for statutory registers in 1993 and instigated instead a review of contaminated land policy. The basic argument against registers was that they could unnecessarily blight land. I understand that.
The review led to a recommendation that there should be a specific contaminated land power in place of the general statutory nuisance power. The previous Government took that power in section 57 of the Environment Act 1995, which inserted a new part IIA into the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That has not yet been implemented, but the Government are considering whether, and if so when, to bring part IIA into operation. We expect to make an announcement shortly.
Let me now refer to repetitive planning applications. I am aware that concern is sometimes expressed about the resource implications of developers submitting more than one planning application for the same piece of land.
A power was introduced through the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 which gives local planning authorities a measure of protection against the behaviour of a small number of developers who submit repetitive applications in an attempt to wear down the resistance of local communities and planning committees. The power enables authorities to turn away planning applications when a substantially similar proposal has been rejected by the Secretary of State on appeal, or following a call-in within the previous two years and where there has been no significant change in the material circumstances.
I appreciate that that power does not go as far as some would wish. It does not control the situation in which an applicant submits repeated applications to the local planning authority, but does not take any of them to appeal. In those situations, we must be careful not to tilt the scales too far and remove from the applicant his legitimate right to appeal. However, I am also concerned at the extra burden that such repeated applications may place on the local authority. It is therefore my intention to look again at that issue, to see what further action might be taken.
The hon. Lady also mentioned motorway service areas. I am well aware that there are a number of competing proposals for motorway service areas on the section of the M4 in the Maidenhead area.


A joint public local planning inquiry has been held into a planning appeal concerning proposals for a motorway service area west of junction 8/9—which is one junction—on the M4. The other site considered at the joint inquiry is in Bracknell Forest district council area.
The inspector's report is unlikely to be received in the Government office for some months, and the proposed decision will be submitted to Ministers in due course. I hope that the hon. Lady will appreciate that, because of our quasi-judicial role, I cannot comment on the merits of the scheme, but I am sure that she is aware that, as the final decision will be taken in the Department, we shall consider carefully all the issues that she raised, and the other representations that have been made.
I am aware that the inquiry has lasted since January and has only just concluded. We are also aware that there have been concerns about the cost of such lengthy inquiries to the local planning authority. I can assure the hon. Lady that we too are concerned about delays in the planning process and are looking at mechanisms to speed it up in the future. That will not remedy the problem that she highlighted, but it may help in the future.
I understand that further developers are also competing to provide MSAs on that section of the M4. In considering proposals for further MSAs, the Government will have regard to the planning policy guidance note, PPG13 on transport, which states that the minimum gap between any two MSAs should normally be 15 miles. That does not mean that the guidance positively recommends provision of MSAs at 15-mile intervals, but it means that the need for a new facility nearer than about 15 miles to an existing

one would not normally be sufficient to outweigh objections on road safety and traffic management grounds.
The guidance does not have in mind any maximum interval beyond which there would be any presumption in favour of the siting of an MSA. The precise number and frequency will depend on private sector responses to market pressures tempered by normal planning considerations. There is no change in the normal operation of the land use planning process, including land use planning policy. Local planning authorities should bear it in mind that, where MSAs are proposed within a short distance of another, my Department will provide signs for only one of them. It will also direct refusal of any scheme accessed directly from the motorway if its proximity to another MSA would disqualify it from signing.
I am conscious that the hon. Lady has raised a large number of detailed issues, and I have not been able to cover every aspect of what she said. I invite her, if she has further concerns, to write to me. I shall be only too happy to try to give her a more detailed response on those matters, apart from those on which I have indicated that we are not able to comment at this stage because the matter may come to our Department on appeal. I repeat my appreciation of the way in which she has raised those important matters, and hope that my reply has helped her and her constituents to understand how the Government are responding to their concerns.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Welfare to Work

Mr. Kidney: What assessment she has made of the potential for the Government's welfare to work proposals to benefit the overseas aid programme. [14107]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue, but as the schemes are designed to help young people available for work in the UK they cannot be used to support work overseas. However, we are contacting the relevant development organisations to draw their attention to the proposals and to suggest that they examine the scope for participating in the scheme at their headquarters in Britain.

Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not exciting that Labour's new deal for young unemployed people may lead to more young Britons helping, albeit in this country, to eradicate poverty and suffering in other parts of the world? Is it not pleasing, too, that that answer shows that the Government are capable of working corporately to meet important policy objectives? Does he think that such success might lead to a wider appreciation of and concern for suffering in less fortunate parts of the world?

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such involvement would be doubly valuable in that it would help young people and the work of organisations such as Voluntary Service Overseas and Oxfam. I understand from the Department for Education and Employment that those organisations have not yet shown an interest, but we are encouraging them to do so, and I hope that from today they will take up such schemes.

Global Free Trade

Mr. Butterfill: What research her Department has evaluated into the impact of global free trade on third world countries. [14108]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): My Department keeps abreast of most research in this sector and is particularly attentive to work by international development organisations including the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. We also maintain a dialogue with non-governmental organisations and academic institutions which are engaged in the sector.

Mr. Butterfill: Would the right hon. Lady confirm her personal commitment and that of her Department to the principle of global free trade? Will she give an

undertaking that both she and her Department will work towards the principle of totally free international trade by the year 2020?

Clare Short: Globalisation is a fact of life; it is not a question of whether people are for or against it. It is as big a historical change as the industrial revolution and can bring great benefits to the world, but it can also have damaging consequences. Recent reports say that it will benefit many developing countries, but that there is a danger that some countries could be completely marginalised from the world economy, and that it could also cause increased inequality and marginalisation in the developed world.
Of course we favour globalisation and the benefits that it brings. We believe that we have to intervene to try to ensure that those benefits are distributed fairly. The great challenge for the industrialised world is to believe in free trade in agricultural goods also, which would benefit the developing world but means that we have to put our house in order.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is often difficult to reconcile free trade with fair trade, and that we must enhance fair trade? Following the launch of the White Paper last week, will she therefore undertake to let the House know from time to time how Members' efforts in their constituencies to enhance fair trade are getting on, and what expansion there is in that regard?

Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that we must ensure that the growth of world trade does not drive down environmental and labour standards and that it produces an improvement of life for humanity and not competition through reduced standards. I also agree with my hon. Friend about fair trade and the ethical movements that are growing and strengthening in Britain. British consumers want to know that the produce they buy and the places where their pension funds are invested are not exploiting labour or damaging the environment. Such movements have great potential impact to reach out across the world and increasingly encourage business to source ethically and improve standards worldwide.

Montserrat

Mr. Baldry: What progress has been made in implementing the housing programme for Montserrat. [14109]

Clare Short: I authorised the provision of £6.5 million for new houses in July 1997. Fifty new permanent houses have been completed and are being handed over to the Government of Montserrat this week. They are due to be occupied from 12 November. A further 50 are under construction and are scheduled to be ready for occupation by the end of December 1997.
I should add for the benefit of the House that the recent scientific evidence from Montserrat is extremely worrying. There is new evidence that the north of the island may not be as safe as was previously thought. Obviously, we must press on, but we have to review the position due to those worrying developments.

Mr. Baldry: No one underestimates the difficulties on Montserrat and the challenges that the Government face


there. Is it not slightly surprising that the Secretary of State has yet to find time to visit Montserrat? Had she done so, some of the confusion in recent weeks might not have been quite so great.
The line from the Government has been that the slowness of the housing programme was due to an alleged strike on Montserrat, whereas the Chief Minister of Montserrat says that there has been no strike whatsoever but simply a slowness of funds from our Government to the Government of Montserrat to pay for the housing programme. Perhaps it is all part of the confusion that no one is quite sure which bits the right hon. Lady is responsible for and which bits are the responsibility of Baroness Symons. Perhaps the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to clarify the issue. Has there been a delay in getting funds to Montserrat? And for which matters is she now responsible?

Clare Short: The right hon. Gentleman might like to look at the dates. Fifty houses were authorised in July. They were built and handed over. There was some delay in installing the electrics because of a "sick-out", as strikes are called in Montserrat. That is regrettable in the current circumstances.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the fracturing of responsibility in Montserrat is a serious problem. My Department is responsible for expenditures from our budget for projects on Montserrat. The Foreign Office is responsible for co-ordination and lead decision making. There is an elected Government of Montserrat and there is also a governor. That creates great difficulties for efficient decision making.
When we have dealt with the present crisis, we need to review how we manage dependent territories, as there is room for improvement.

Ms Abbott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 300 people in Montserrat are still in temporary shelters? Many of them have been in those shelters for more than two years, often in appalling conditions. Men, women and children are separated only by thin curtains and there is no sanitation. Is she aware of the concern on Montserrat about the slowness of the Government's house building programme?

Clare Short: I am aware of those conditions, but my hon. Friend referred to a two-year delay. She will be aware that we have not been in power for all that time. I authorised a house-building programme in July, and the first 50 houses are about to be occupied. I am aware that the management of the shelters leaves a lot to be desired.
In addition, large numbers of people who live on Montserrat have expressed a wish to leave the island, and I am worried that their desires have not been properly processed. As I said in my main answer, the recent scientific advice is extremely worrying: we have to review new building in the north of the island and whether it remains safe for large numbers of people to remain there.

Mr. Öpik: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether, in her view, the north of the island is safely habitable? What plans are there for a large-scale evacuation while a sustainable development plan is being prepared for the island?

Clare Short: As I said to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), that is a decision for the Foreign Office.

We received reports in September that the volcanic ash, which is predominantly in the south of the island but blows everywhere, is more dangerous than was previously thought and can cause silicosis. It was thought that the north of the island would be safe, but the ash blowing around could affect human health. We have just received new advice from the scientists that the volcano could produce droppings—clast, or whatever it is called—on the north of the island, creating new dangers. We have just received that advice, and it needs to be reviewed urgently.

Ethical Trading

Helen Jackson: What contacts her Department has with organisations advocating fair trade and ethical investment; and what consideration she is giving to further development in these areas. [14110]

Clare Short: As I said, I am very keen to encourage and reinforce the fair trade and ethical investment consumer movements in every possible way. My Department has numerous and growing contacts with groups interested in fair trade and ethical investment in developing countries. I especially welcome our increasing contacts with groups within the British business community, which is increasingly interested in the issue. The potential of those movements to improve labour standards and environmental protection for large numbers of people in developing countries is considerable. We are asking British companies and non-governmental organisations to work together towards those goals.

Helen Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate her on what last week's White Paper had to say about fair trade. May I suggest, however, that the really difficult part will be in achieving any world consensus or action on practical ways in which fair trade and ethical investment can operate? Nevertheless, I congratulate my right hon. Friend and you, Madam Speaker, on launching a practical example in the House today showing that it is possible to drink fair trade coffee. Not only does such coffee offer production workers good wages and conditions—it tastes very good, too.

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with her that it is very good that the House will now consume ethical coffee which has been produced without abusing labour or pesticides—[Interruption.] Conservative Members sneer at ethics, but the British people are interested in them. Like you, Madam Speaker, I had a cup of that coffee this morning and it was extremely good. As I have said, ethical movements and consumers' interest in such movements are potentially very influential in the world.
Currently, my Department is assisting all British supermarkets and non-governmental organisations in talks on a code for ethical sourcing so that the British people will know that everything on the shelves in those supermarkets is being produced with decent labour standards and non-abuse of the environment. The value of the produce ordered in developing countries by the top 10 British supermarkets is greater than the total income of the world's 35 poorest countries, so the potential power of this is enormous.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I refer the right hon. Lady to section 3 of her White Paper, which deals specifically


with fair trade and ethical investment? That section advocates reform of the European Union's common agricultural policy, and the first paragraph of the section stresses the importance of consistency. In the reform that she will advocate, will she advocate elimination of European Union subsidies to tobacco producers in the southern European states—or is the promotion of tobacco production in the developed world a special case?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue—which includes the issue of tobacco production. However, I prefer to deal with the matter straight on, rather than to play silly political games.
The issue of trade liberalisation extends to agriculture. Although industrialised countries frequently lecture developing countries about the need to open their markets to trade, we have highly protected and highly subsidised agriculture—dumping lots of agricultural produce on world markets and undermining the capacity of those countries to develop. I am against such subsidies in principle, including for tobacco. [Interruption.] I take no lessons from Opposition Members.
Due to the proposal to widen the European Union, there is a very good opportunity for—and a driving commitment to—common agricultural policy reform. It is the duty of my Department to ensure that the interests of the developing world, and its chance to work its way out of poverty, are taken into account in the review of the CAP.

White Paper (Representations)

Ann Clwyd: What representations her Department has received in response to the White Paper on International Development in respect of its emphasis on poverty. [14111]

Mr. Foulkes: We had about 150 detailed written submissions from outside bodies in preparing the White Paper, many of which called for a focus on poverty elimination. Since its publication on 5 November, the White Paper has had an enthusiastic and positive reception, particularly for its commitment to work towards ending world poverty.

Ann Clwyd: What mechanisms will the Department use to target investment from British companies on the poorest countries, and how will those targets benefit the poorest people in those countries?

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall be working with our development partners to help poorer countries to create an enabling environment which will attract more investment. In particular, we shall work to reduce initial costs and the perceived risks of investments which support the aim of poverty elimination.

Dr. Tonge: Does the Minister agree that it is very sad that a country as rich as ours cannot increase its proportion of aid to developing countries? I understand that the Department is to review and redirect funds over the next two years. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the review will be totally transparent and that the House will be told which countries and organisations are to be the winners and losers?

Mr. Foulkes: I am beginning to wonder whether the hon. Lady has read the White Paper. It commits the

Government clearly to reversing the decline in money spent in development which occurred under the previous Government—a decline from 0.51 per cent. of total spending and rising when Labour left office to 0.27 per cent. and falling now.
We also intend to create a public-private partnership of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which will put hundreds of millions of extra pounds into the development programme. It is about time the hon. Lady recognised that, and congratulated the new Government on what we are doing.

Sir Alastair Goodlad: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that abject poverty can be created by sudden natural disaster? What has been his Department's response to the worsening crisis in southern Somalia as a result of flooding of the River Giuba, which has reportedly caused at least 150,000 people to be cast into total destitution over the past day or two in a situation of worsening anarchy?

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question. As soon as I heard about the situation in southern Somalia, I discussed it with our officials, and we have made it absolutely clear—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also made it clear—that we shall make resources available through the international aid agencies working in Somalia. As soon as we get a request we shall consider it sympathetically. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support.

Mr. Connarty: Will the Minister confirm that he is making all haste to allow the Commonwealth Development Corporation to access private financial sums to invest in ethical projects such as those that we have discussed? Can he give the House some idea of the time scale for the changes that he intends to bring about?

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In fact, the purpose of the public-private partnership is to access more money to help poorer countries. It will, however, require legislation, which we hope can be introduced in the next Session. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for indicating his willingness to serve on the Committee that twill examine that legislation.

Commonwealth Development Corporation

Mr. Spring: What are her plans for the future of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. [14112]

Clare Short: As has just been said, my plans are to propose to Parliament that private investors should be invited to invest money in the CDC, turning a state corporation into a partnership between the public and private sectors. The Government will retain a substantial minority holding and a golden share, which will ensure that the CDC remains a development organisation. The new arrangements will enable it to increase private sector investment into the poorest countries.

Mr. Spring: How long will the Government retain their golden share? Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a risk that the CDC could be acquired by an organisation not dedicated to the fullest implementation of the developmental process?

Clare Short: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that. We intend that the golden share will be held in perpetuity.


The CDC is working on strengthening the ethical code governing its work. It wants a public-private partnership. It does not want to be an entirely private sector organisation. We do not want that, either. It can act as an important bridge for private sector investment in the world's poorest countries, which do not currently receive such investment. We hope that that will be followed by pure private sector investment. 1 give the hon. Gentleman the absolute guarantee that the CDC will not become a private investment institution. There are plenty of those. It has a different job.

Montserrat

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If she will make a statement on assistance to Montserrat. [14113]

Mr. Foulkes: Since the start of the volcanic crisis, around £45.8 million of emergency aid, development assistance and budgetary aid has been committed by Her Majesty's Government to the needs of Montserrat. When I visited Montserrat in September, we agreed to produce a sustainable development plan for the northern third of the island so that people can continue to live there as long as it remains safe to do so. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, I met the chief scientist of the Montserrat volcanic observatory earlier and there are further doubts about safety which we have to consider urgently.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. Does he agree with the Chief Minister of Montserrat that it is wrong to use the same budget for assistance to British dependent territories as is used for aid to India, Pakistan and Uganda? Does not aid currently go from London offices to Barbados offices and thence to Montserrat? Could we not cut out one of those stages?

Mr. Foulkes: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, although I am surprised to hear myself say that. He has raised a good point about where the money comes from. If he has had the opportunity to read they White Paper, he will know that the reasonable needs of dependent territories will remain a first call on the aid budget. Barbados has been taken out of the line of decision making; there is a direct link between Montserrat and our Department in the United Kingdom and I talk regularly to the Chief Minister to ensure that things are done as quickly as possible and that the decisions made are implemented as quickly as possible.

Mr. Gapes: Will the Minister look urgently into the problem faced by many people from Montserrat who have been evacuated to this country through no fault of their own but are being subjected to the three-year rule on going into higher and further education and therefore not getting grants from local authorities? Will he discuss that with his colleagues from the Department for Education and Employment to find a way to assist British dependent territory citizens while they are in this country?

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is a little out of date on the arrangements for citizens of Montserrat. Special arrangements have been made for them. On his most recent visit to the United Kingdom, Chief Minister Brandt

discussed that issue with Baroness Blackstone and I know that the Department for Education and Employment is particularly concerned about it.

Mr. Faber: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the assurance that he gave the House on 1 July that he would make strong representations to the defence review on behalf of the West Indies guard ship, which continues to play a vital role in bringing relief to the people of Montserrat? Can he explain the written answer that I have received from the Secretary of State for Defence saying that no such representations have been made? Did it merely slip the Minister's mind that he gave the House such an assurance, or does he no longer consider the role of the guard ship to be as important as it was?

Mr. Foulkes: The West Indies guard ship plays an especially important role, as I saw myself when I visited Monserrat and met the captain and many of its crew. I have spoken personally to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the guard ship, which is perhaps why the hon. Gentleman got the answer he did. Officials from our Department are participating in discussions on the strategic defence review, and those points and others will be made.

Child Labour

Mr. Gareth Thomas: What steps the Government are taking to eliminate child labour. [14114]

Clare Short: We are working with the International Labour Organisation and developing countries to support programmes immediately to ban hazardous and exploitative child labour and to put in place plans to phase out excessive child labour and get the children into school. At the international conference on child labour in Oslo last month, I announced support for a new project in Pakistan and my willingness to work with other countries to reach our goal.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments. Does she agree that poverty lies at the heart of child labour and the exploitation of children, and that the way to eradicate those problems is to eradicate world poverty?

Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is useful to examine our history on the matter and then we learn the right lessons. We used to have high levels of child labour and low levels of child education, but improvements in living conditions, as well as the spread of education, brought child labour to an end. We must have similar programmes in other countries to ban immediately the most exploitative and hazardous labour, and to increase the number of children in education and the opportunities of their parents to gain employment. That process of change is connected with plans for poverty eradication.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I congratulate the Secretary of State on transforming the way of dealing with child labour. The worst problems of many third-world countries are not the young children who work in sensible jobs. Will she focus the attention of her Department on street children, who work on their own behalf and are often badly abused?


That should be the first focus of our help; the other problems should begin to resolve as the economies of those countries improve.

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right. The evidence in Bangladesh shows that well intentioned moves by the United States of America to ban the import of any garments produced by child labour led to many children going on to the streets as beggars and child prostitutes. That is why we need an overview of the problem to deal with the most exploitative mistreatment of children and to work with Governments to phase out child labour and get children into school, instead of having one-off boycotts.

Palestinian Authority

Mr. Gunnell: If she will make a statement on the level of financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority in the current year; and what is the projected level for 1998–99. [14115]

Mr. Foulkes: Bilateral assistance to the Palestinian National Authority in this financial year will amount to about £10 million. That is in addition to our £6 million contribution in 1997 to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees and our one-sixth share of the European Commission's 50 million ecu programme of assistance to the West Bank and Gaza. Bilateral funding for the next financial year will be decided early in the next calendar year.

Mr. Gunnell: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he give particular attention, when he has some additional funds, to the needs of the Palestinian National Authority and projects in Palestine? I am sure that he is aware of the disappointment felt by people who live in Gaza and the West Bank at the restrictions on their borders. It is important that we ensure that progress is made in that territory to support arguments to put to those who wish to take up arms to support their cause. We need to urge them to join in the work to make the peace process effective.

Mr. Foulkes: I am sympathetic to the point made by my hon. Friend. Expenditure in the past three years has ranged between £3.5 million and £6 million. I am sure that he will agree that £10 million in the current financial year is a significant and welcome increase.

Mr. David Atkinson: As the Palestinian refugee question is one of the final status issues to be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinian Authority by May 1999—in 18 months' time—does the Minister agree that Governments should be budgeting now for their donations to the cost of resettlement out of the 59 camps, as well as their contributions to the Palestinian Authority and to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency? What initiatives does he have in mind to draw that need to the attention of Governments during the forthcoming British presidency of the European Union?

Mr. Foulkes: We shall certainly take account of those points, and we shall raise them on behalf of the United Kingdom Government in our discussions with UNRWA.

Dr. Starkey: As the White Paper stresses the importance of private investment in helping with

development effort, does my hon. Friend agree that the current closure of the west bank makes it incredibly difficult for private industry to invest there or in Gaza, because industries have almost no stable future in that environment?

Mr. Foulkes: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said.

Land Mines

Mr. Laurence Robertson: If she will make a statement regarding the Government's intended stance at the forthcoming Ottawa conference in connection with anti-personnel land mines. [14117]

Clare Short: I plan to attend the ministerial conference and convention signing ceremony on 3 December, and I shall proudly sign on behalf of Britain to join in the land mine ban. I will emphasise the Government's commitment to achieving the widest possible support for a total ban on anti-personnel land mines. We shall follow up the Ottawa convention in other negotiating bodies. We shall also pursue with vigour our programme of de-mining. The British delegation will take part in the parallel round table discussions, which will include discussion of plans to speed up and co-ordinate de-mining internationally.

Mr. Robertson: I thank the right hon. Lady for that answer, and I wish her well in her attempts to secure a worldwide ban. Is she aware that many land mines throughout the world are cleared by children as young as 10? What will the Government do to prevent that?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right; we need both a ban and a speeding up of de-mining. At current rates of clearance, it will take 1,000 years to clear the land mines already out there, and more are being laid as we speak. We must speed clearance and enlarge the capacity of the countries that have so many land mines to clear them for themselves. That is the only way to get the speed up.
I am not aware of children actually de-mining, but many children suffer grave injuries as a result of mines when they go out to play or to collect wood. We must make more urgent progress on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Luff: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 November.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I shall have further meetings with them later today.

Mr. Luff: Which Minister took the decision to exempt formula one from the tobacco sponsorship ban?

The Prime Minister: I shall set out our position for the hon. Gentleman with enthusiasm and relish.


It was a collective decision, made in the normal way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the hon. Gentleman listens, I can explain how.
There have been discussions over a period of time, ever since the European Union directive was raised about the impact on sport. On 5 June, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health told the European Council:
The UK Government shares the broad objectives of the draft Directive. But there are unresolved legal questions about its scope, as well as practical issues, such as the impact on sports if it is agreed that the Directive should extend to sports sponsorship by tobacco companies.
Following that meeting, there were meetings and discussions about sport and the effect on sports sponsorship of a ban on tobacco sponsorship. The Minister for Public Health met representatives of formula one on 23 September. They met Chancellor Kohl on 28 September and had earlier met Prime Minister Prodi. I met them on 16 October. No decisions were taken then. A number of different options were under discussion, including legislating through subsidiarity or a period of derogation for all sport.
Finally, at the beginning of last week, there was the decision to seek a specific exemption for formula one and then to seek a worldwide voluntary agreement so as to avoid grand prix in other countries being shown here without restriction. Once that route was chosen, I recognised that there was obviously an appearance of conflict of interest. After discussion with the general secretary of the Labour party, we sought Sir Patrick Neill's advice. He gave it; we followed it to the letter. It was the right decision for the right reasons. Can anyone imagine the Tory party ever returning a donation?

Mr. Quinn: I am sure that many people in Scarborough and Whitby, and indeed in the rest of the nation, will support the Government's intention to introduce legislation on foreign donations to political parties. Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only should the terms of reference—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. All hon. Members who are on their feet will be heard. Others do not have to listen, but hon. Members who are speaking will be heard.

Mr. Quinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Committee on Standards in Public Life should not only be given the widest terms of reference but be asked to deliver its deliberations at the earliest opportunity, not only from the point of view of the people in the country, but with the widest support of the House? [Laughter.]

The Prime Minister: Conservative Members may laugh, but they refused to have such an investigation when they were in power. We announced at the time of Sir Patrick Neill's appointment as successor to Lord Nolan that his remit would be extended to cover all aspects of party funding. 1 can confirm that we are asking Sir Patrick to consider the whole area of party funding: whether donors should be disclosed; whether the size of donations should be disclosed; whether there should be a limit on individual donations; whether there should be a limit on overall spending; and whether there should be different arrangements altogether, such as increased state funding.

The investigation is long overdue; it is one that we urged in opposition, when the Conservative Government refused to have it. Sir Patrick Neill will be able to make his recommendations, and we will all then be playing on a level playing field.

Mr. Hague: Is the Prime Minister aware that the leading governing bodies of sport met this morning and decided to ask for a personal meeting with him about tobacco advertising? Is he happy to have such a meeting on the same basis as his meeting with formula one?

The Prime Minister: Of course I am, but they have not sought such a meeting before. If they seek such a meeting now, of course they can have it.

Mr. Hague: They are seeking such a meeting now, and I am happy to hear that the Prime Minister will see them. When he does, will he consider the letter sent to the Government last week by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association, which says that:
all the arguments made by Formula One for exemption can also be made by
billiards and snooker? It continues:
It is grossly unfair that the strength of a powerful lobby should
prevail
over the reasoned argument of less well funded sports. Surely this is not the way of New Labour.
Will the Prime Minister consider a temporary exemption for billiards and snooker, as he did for formula one?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman understands. In the directive there is already a temporary derogation for sport. The question is whether it is long enough and right for formula one, which is in a special position. [Laughter.] Let me explain. There are some 15 grand prix countries, of which some, including the United Kingdom, have no legal tobacco sponsorship restrictions or very limited ones. All the eight others that have restrictions on sponsorship have either special exemptions for formula one alone or special arrangements for formula one.
Australia has the toughest anti-sponsorship laws in the world, but specifically exempts formula one. In Canada there are new regulations to prohibit sponsorship, but auto racing is to be exempt. There are specific exemptions in Portugal, Germany and France. In Italy there is a ban that covers formula one, but formula one takes place, there is sponsorship, and a nominal fine is levied on the company every year.
The right hon. Gentleman may disagree with the decision that we have taken, but when all those other countries have specific exemptions, I ask him to have a care for the effect on British industry if we follow the course that he is advocating.

Mr. Hague: It is no good the Prime Minister talking about the European directive, when the European Commission has said of his announcement:
it's a disaster, a complete U turn. This could spell the end of the directive, obliging the Commission to withdraw the proposal.


It is no good his talking about the European directive. Is he aware of the deep anxieties in sports other than formula one such as angling and cricket, one of the representatives of which said this morning:
It is particularly disappointing that a Labour Government of all governments should strangle the life out of working-class sports.
Is the Prime Minister now prepared to give the same consideration to those sports as to formula one?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman blocked the directive on tobacco advertising. The Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member blocked the directive.

Mr. Hague: Is not the Prime Minister making up his policy as he goes along? Is it not the case that the Government are in turmoil and chaos over this? Is it not the case that this is another broken promise to go along with pensions, tax, tuition fees and cold weather payments? I am not accusing the Labour party of being paid to break its promises; it breaks them for free all the time. Is this not what happens when a party seeks office without a principle, value, or belief to its name?

The Prime Minister: I think that people remember what happened: a Tory party that undermined the national health service; a Tory party that wrecked Britain's schools; a Labour party putting more money into health and more money into schools; the welfare-to-work programme; a Tory party that said that it would never put VAT on fuel and then put it on; a Tory party that cannot even make up its mind whether it disagrees with the decision that we have taken or thinks that we have taken it for the wrong reasons.
We were told at lunchtime that the right hon. Gentleman had some killer points; that it was an open goal and he was going to put the ball in the net. He has walked up to the penalty spot and booted it over the bar.

Dr. George Turner: Will my right hon. Friend recognise, on reflection. that there is a long history and deep experience of receiving money from industrial sources both national and international in the Tory party? Would it not, therefore, be appropriate that, in looking to a review of the way in which politics is funded, all parties represented in this Chamber should open their books for the past five years so that the public can see what they have been about?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservative party has never disclosed any of the donations that it has received, and it has not even paid back Asil Nadir's £360,000.

Mr. Ashdown: Leaving aside the Government's extraordinary change of policy on cigarette advertising, which I hope they will reconsider, may I return to the question of political funding? The Prime Minister's statement that the Neill inquiry into political funding will have the widest remit and will be required to produce its outcome as soon as possible is welcome—we cannot lose any time in restoring public confidence in how we fund our politics.
However, in that context, I remind the Prime Minister that, more than 100 years ago, in 1883, we decided to limit the amount that constituencies could spend on

electoral campaigning. Surely the time has now arrived to end once and for all this damaging warfare—this arms race—between the parties and limit the amount of money that can be spent on national campaigning as well.

The Prime Minister: First, let me deal with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the decision is extraordinary. I have set out how virtually every other country has exemptions for formula one if it has a grand prix, so it is not a very extraordinary decision. I would also draw his attention to the jobs that are at risk if we lose formula one from this country—the 8,000 people directly employed in formula one. The chairman of the Motorsport Industry Association said earlier today that, if formula one leaves the country, there will be problems for the whole of the British motor racing industry. So, whether people agree or disagree with the decision, there is at least a perfectly sensible basis for it, given what happens in other countries.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about party funding, I agree that there is a case for looking at all these things. I hope that Sir Patrick Neill can look at every issue connected with party funding. We will support him strongly in doing that. I would say only that for years I have fought elections with the Labour party being outspent by the Tory party £4 or £5 to £1, because they never disclose the source of their donations at all. What I want is a level playing field, and if that comes with restrictions on amounts and restrictions on the level of money that can be spent in elections, I am perfectly happy with that. What I will not do is go into election fighting when the Tories can raise as much money as they want and never have to disclose it—without the Labour party's being able to raise money, too.

Laura Moffatt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the staff of Crawley hospital will be much happier this winter when they discover that they now have a £450,000 share of the £300 million for crisis admissions? Does not such news make people working in the caring professions believe that working for the national health service is more worth while?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having gone around several hospitals, I know that although people still suffer as a result of many of the things done by the previous Government, they at last believe that they have a Government who believe in the national health service. We have the extra £300 million going in this year and an extra £1.2 billion next year, and we are doing our very best to ensure that health service funding is put on a stable footing for the long term. That will be enormously welcome to everyone who works in the health service.

Mr. Fallon: Instead of waiting for details of the Ecclestone donation to be forced out of him four weeks later, why did the Prime Minister not refer that donation to the public standards watchdog immediately after the meeting on 16 October?

The Prime Minister: Because the papers have been referred to Sir Patrick Neill—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] At the end of last week. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] They ask the question, but do not want the answer. The papers were referred to Sir Patrick Neill, who then reported back


on Monday. The moment he reported back, we published his advice and followed it. I repeat: I do not believe that the party the hon. Gentleman represents would ever have behaved in that way.

Mr. Pickthall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the further education sector has been treated appallingly over the past 18 years, having been subjected by the previous Government to alternating periods of neglect, especially in terms of funding, and harassment? Is it not still the Cinderella service of our education system, when it should be regarded as its linchpin? Will he tell the House what the Government are going to do to correct that?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the dire financial situation that further education colleges were left in by the previous Government's policies. I am delighted, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment today announced a major new boost for further education. An extra £83 million in new funding will be made available next year, and colleges will also be able to bid for more than £100 million new deal money for education and training. That is new money, which would never have been put in by the previous Government.

Mr. Bob Russell: Has the Labour party received any benefits from Mr. Ecclestone's donation of £1 million before the election? Was that money used to reduce an overdraft on deposit? What has happened to the interest?

The Prime Minister: The money was spent as part of the general election campaign, as the hon. Gentleman would expect. The Labour party has published the names of donors this year and will publish them again next year. Neither of the other two main parties does that.

Mr. Skinner: When my right hon. Friend sets up the committee to look into the question of money from outsiders and into the cap on national expenditure in general election campaigns, will he bear in mind that the cap for constituencies equates to about £6 million for a party contesting 650 seats? If we also had a national cap of about £6 million, there would not be many pollsters from the Tory party knocking about and there would not be many advertisements in the newspapers, but it would be a level playing field. That would enable us to escape from what has happened in the United States of America, where the problem can no longer be handled because that kind of sleaze has gone too far.

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether this will do more damage to me or to my hon. Friend, but I must admit that I agree with the broad outline of what he says. We have fought general elections—[Interruption.] It is all very well for Conservative Members to shout, but we have had to fight elections in which there was direct mail without limit—they sent out literally millions of letters—advertising hoardings and advertising in newspapers, and in which vast expense was incurred. We have never been told how a penny of it was raised. We want the same rules—a level playing field—for everybody.

Dartington (Visit)

Mr. Steen: If he will make an official visit to Dartington in the Totnes constituency.

The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I intend to visit all regions of the country.

Mr. Steen: Since Dartington and the Totnes area of south Devon is a mecca for alternative therapies, and given the increase in the number of people now benefiting from complementary medicines—many Members of Parliament have experienced those benefits and some need the experience even more—will the Prime Minister endorse the view of the King's Fund, supported by Prince Charles? Leading physicians and those involved in complementary medicines are seeking a solution whereby their approach to medicine can go into mainstream medicine.

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health will meet the Prince of Wales next week to discuss the recommendations of the integrated health care document. We are, of course, considering the issue carefully. In addition, Department of Health officials will arrange meetings with its main authors. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, doctors and clinicians in the national health service are free to arrange for their patients to receive complementary medicine if there is a clinical need for it. It is a growing area, which is now supported by as many within the national health service as outside it.

Engagements

Jacqui Smith: I welcome the Chancellor's announcement of an extra £300 million for health services this winter and my right hon. Friend's comments today. When will we know how much of that money will be available for the Worcestershire area? In the light of local concerns about health authority reviews, can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that extra money made available by this Government will be targeted directly on patient care and not used to prop up the inefficiencies of the previous Government's internal market?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that her local health authority in Worcestershire is receiving an extra £1.5 million, which will go directly into improving patient care this winter. That is part of £300 million more than the Conservative Government were willing to give the national health service.
That is not all we are doing for the national health service. As a result of getting rid of the discredited Conservative internal market, a further £100 million has already been saved for the health service. That is extra money going not into bureaucrats, but into patient care

Mr. Brady: Given the importance that the Neill committee has attached to the Government being seen to behave properly, not merely behaving properly, will the Prime Minister undertake to publish the minutes of the meeting that he had with Mr. Ecclestone on 16 October?

The Prime Minister: What we have done was set out clearly in reply to an earlier question. There was never


any favour, sought or given. The decision is the right decision, taken for the right reasons. If the hon. Gentleman is asking about the Neill committee, he might ask why his own party, despite the promise of its leader four months ago, has still not published any information about its own donations.

Dr. Tony Wright: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, when the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life was established—as long ago as 1995—he, on behalf of the Labour party, pressed immediately for the issue of party funding to be referred to that committee, but the Conservative Government refused to make that referral because they were terrified about what it would reveal? Taking up the points raised on both sides of the House, does he accept that there is an anomaly between the restriction on party spending at constituency level and the lack of restriction at national level? As a matter of principle, is it not the case that, the cheaper our politics becomes, the cleaner it will become?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the sentiments that my hon. Friend has just expressed. We did ask for the Nolan committee, as it then was, to be able to look at party funding. I raised the matter several times when I was Leader of the Opposition; I was refused every time. The Conservatives have still not disclosed the names of the people who funded the last election campaign for them. When will they disclose that information, as they promised some months ago?

Mr. Martin Bell: Does the Prime Minister agree that the perception of wrong-doing can be as damaging to public confidence as the wrong-doing itself? Have we slain one dragon only to have another take its place, with a red rose in its mouth?

The Prime Minister: That is precisely why we sought the advice of Sir Patrick Neill. He gave that advice. We followed it to the letter. When Sir Patrick Neill reports, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in making sure that we can get the proper restrictions on party donations for all political parties, including, for the first time, the Conservative party.

Mr. Pearson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a relatively obscure Australian called Rolf Harris

caused gridlock in my constituency at the weekend because the hugely popular Merry Hill shopping centre has massive traffic problems, which the previous Government did nothing about? Will he ensure that the Government's new integrated transport policy improves rail access and relieves local congestion so that we can have the balanced transport system that the people of the west midlands want?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is precisely why we will publish a paper on the subject shortly. I know that it will provide great assistance to his constituents and to others throughout the country.

Mr. Prior: I return the Prime Minister to his meeting on 16 October. Why did he not refer the result of that meeting to the Nolan committee as soon he could?

The Prime Minister: I shall reply directly: it is for the exact reason that I gave earlier. No decisions were made on 16 October. At that point in time, a number of different options were under discussion. For example, one of those options was that the national principle of subsidiarity should apply, so there would be a broad directive and then national legislation. Another option was that there should be a derogation for a long period, with a review break for all sport. It was only at the beginning of last week that the specific exemption for formula one was decided upon. The moment that happened, we took action.

Mr. Todd: Might I change the subject and ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that I recently visited Southern Derbyshire health authority to discuss preparations for the winter crisis in health and the appalling state of the health service in my area? Will he tell the House how much Southern Derbyshire health authority has been allocated from the £300 million that has been set aside? [Laughter.]

The Prime Minister: Conservative Members may laugh, but getting more money into the health service is precisely what this country wants—and we are delivering it. One of the reasons the people turned the Tories out at the election is the damage they did to the national health service. At long last the people again have a Government who believe in the national health service.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

Douglas Garven Alexander Esq., for Paisley, South [Interruption.]

Helen Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In all my time in this place, I have never heard such rudeness when a new Member from any party has arrived at the House to take his or her seat and to do a job on behalf of his or her constituents. It is appalling to hear such barracking of a new Member of Parliament who has just taken his seat. I would be grateful if you would comment on that.

Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Lady's point is well taken by the House and by me. I, too, have never heard such jeering when a new Member has been brought into the House. I told the hon. Member, when he took his seat, that I hoped that he would not join those who have made such noise today.

Representation of the People (Amendment)

Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend electoral registration for homeless persons.
Within a nation, or any other political system, the right to vote is the fundamental building block of democracy. By itself it does not guarantee democratic arrangements, but given free, competitive political parties and competing individual candidates, it is the basis on which the rights of individuals and group interests are based.
When the mass franchise grew in Britain, from 1867, it was part of the dynamic that led us on to free education, old-age pensions and the high water mark of the welfare state. We tend to assume that the issues of the franchise were sorted out satisfactorily years ago. Apart from convicted persons in penal institutions; those who are seriously mentally impaired; residents from overseas—other than those from the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland—and peers in parliamentary elections, we assume that everyone else over 18 is catered for.
That is not so. Millions are missing from electoral registers; most disabled people cannot even get into polling stations; and homeless people face not only practical difficulties in registering to vote, but a major legal impediment.
Ever since we got rid of property and financial qualifications for voting, in 1918, we have insisted that a person has to be a "resident" to qualify for a vote. A resident needs a residence, and a homeless person, by definition, cannot meet that qualification. Those who qualify to vote are those who are held to have a permanent residence on the qualifying date for electoral registration.
I therefore propose some simple changes in the law, to allow for the registration of homeless people. First, if a homeless person takes temporary occupation of residential accommodation for homeless persons on the qualifying date, that would count. That would cover Salvation Army hostels and their equivalent.
Secondly, a "declaration of locality" properly made and attested to would also qualify a homeless person for registration. It would state the address or place where the person stays, or with which he or she is most closely connected. Homeless people can often be found in particular areas where they sleep rough.
Although the registration changes that 1 have in mind would work best with a proactive response from the Home Office and from electoral registration officers, organisations for homeless people would also play a key role in encouraging registration. These include The Big Issue, which operates not just in London but in many other cities; the National Homeless Alliance, which, in 1995, as CHAR, the housing campaign for single homeless people, produced an invaluable survey entitled "No Home, No Vote, No Voice"—its work shaped my proposed Bill—and Streetlife. Streetlife, the National Homeless Alliance and others have been involved in activities in support of my Bill earlier today outside the House.
Most localities have groups that work with the homeless. These would also act as recruiting agents for registration. Electoral returning officers would tend to be


keen to act in line with the measures that I propose, as their association—the Association of Electoral Administrators—seeks to remove barriers to registration, including the removal of difficulties for people without permanent or conventional residential qualifications.
If someone asked me why we should bother about the rights of homeless people, I would feel sorry for the questioner. Homelessness is a major problem, which has grown with the free market and the attacks in the past 18 years on the welfare state and social housing. The homeless are our fellow citizens, who should be entitled, enabled and encouraged to vote, and to stand for elected bodies. The vote gives a voice, and if the voice of the homeless is not heard, the rest of us are less likely to respond to their concerns.
Ultimately, the vote is part of the process whereby the homeless themselves can set the wheels in motion to help to overcome their homeless status. If we think that that is a wild ideal—when it involves the benefits of democratic participation—we have no right to be in this place.
I hope that the Home Office will respond favourably to my Bill. I am bringing it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), in his capacity as Minister without Portfolio, as it is clearly an issue of social exclusion relevant to the unit about which he told us in his Fabian speech.
If the House gives me permission to bring in the Bill, hon. Members will discover that it was brought in by two Conservative Members, two Liberal Democrats, the leader of Plaid Cymru, the deputy leader of the Scottish National party, the only independent Member of Parliament and Labour Members representing Scotland, Wales and England. Only Northern Ireland Members are missing—but they come part of the way with me in a report published by the Northern Ireland Forum, where I gave evidence to an electoral body interested in electoral matters.
The members of that body said that they supported the measure as far as temporary accommodation was concerned—Salvation Army units and their equivalents—but they felt some anxiety, which I consider unfounded, about electoral fraud. That is a big problem in Northern Ireland, in comparison to what happens in other areas. I therefore propose initially that the Bill should apply to Britain; subsequently, Northern Ireland's specific considerations would need to be tackled.
I believe that hon. Members in all parties support the Bill, and I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Tam Dalyell and Mr. Paul Flynn.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Harry Barnes accordingly presented a Bill to extend electoral registration for homeless persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January, and to be printed [Bill 81].

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Bill

[Relevant documents: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday 4th November (HC305-i) .]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I invite the House to approve the Bill that puts the Amsterdam treaty into legislation with pride. I am proud that we achieved a good deal for Britain, and confident that any open-minded Member will support the Bill and the treaty. I confess that there are probably not many such Members in the House, but I am encouraged by the fact that the Bill and the treaty constitute such a good deal for Britain that I can attempt to persuade even Conservative Members to rise above their prejudices and support it—despite whatever dark suspicions they may have that Amsterdam is in Europe, and probably full of Europeans.
Let us start that attempt by appealing to Conservative Members on the basis of two major gains in Britain's national interests, which even Conservatives must surely applaud.
First, the Amsterdam treaty provides a secure legal basis for Britain to retain its frontier controls—a legal basis that is watertight beyond legal challenge to the European Court of Justice; a legal basis that is without time limit as long as Britain chooses to retain it. It recognises that, because Britain is an island, it is sensible for us to retain controls at the point of entry, and that, because of our long historical and cultural ties with other parts of the world, it is important to retain control of our own immigration policy. Policy on border controls and immigration will be made in Britain, not in Brussels.

Mr. Michael Howard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: So soon? Of course.

Mr. Howard: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that that deal was done before the election, at the Foreign Affairs Council in March?

Mr. Cook: I have heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman assert that before. We have scoured the cupboards of the Home Office and the Foreign Office, but no such deal was anywhere to be found in any of the many draft treaties that we inherited. If he had made that deal, he should have explained it to the other members of the European Union, so that it would not have been necessary for us to continue until 4 o'clock in the morning to get the package. There was certainly nothing in the text about immigration or border controls when we took it over, but there is certainly something of the night about this treaty.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend have any confirmation that the


statements made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and by the Leader of the Opposition that they would call for a referendum on the treaty of Amsterdam will lead to an amendment being tabled? If my right hon. Friend has no information on that, would he care to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if that is the case?

Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will make his speech in his own good time. It is certainly true that he was loud in his demands throughout the summer for a referendum. Indeed, he was demanding a referendum as late as the Conservative party conference on 8 October. He may have read with interest, as I did, in The Daily Telegraph only five days later that his leader had decided quietly to ditch the commitment to a referendum. I can only conclude that the Conservative party is now so weary of being defeated in elections and referendums that it has decided to draw a line under them.
I have shown that we have retained our control over borders and frontiers. There is another national gain that I hope Conservative Members will recognise. We have prevented attempts to subordinate the Western European Union as a defence arm of the European Commission within the European Union. We have reasserted—it is explicitly stated in the treaty—that the defence of western Europe and of Britain will continue to be through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, not through the European Union. The European Union will not now be a defence organisation.
We have shown in the treaty that it is entirely possible to co-operate with our European partners and to work with them on the prosperity of our economy, on the health of our environment and on the safety against drugs on our streets, without compromising our national identity. I hope, therefore, that the delicate souls in the Press Gallery will not be frightened by Conservative Europhobes parading the ghouls and beasties of federalism that lurk only in the recesses of their subconscious.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Having said that, does my right hon. Friend think that it is at least wise to talk to the French before there is any question of endorsing military action against Iraq?

Mr. Cook: I am not entirely sure that that intervention naturally arose from the passage in my speech. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we discussed that matter and many others with the French at last week's very successful Anglo-French summit. The French were wholly in agreement with our position. At this time, it is most important for the United Nations, particularly the five permanent members of the Security Council, which includes Britain and France, to send a united message to Saddam Hussein that he must observe the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolutions.
I was about to remind the shadow Foreign Secretary that, early in the summer, he predicted that the agenda for Amsterdam was so far-reaching that it would call into question our survival as a nation state. Even making generous allowance for the hyperbole that is appropriate

to a leadership race, I have to say that that statement is so far out of touch with the reality of the Bill that it qualifies him to be out of orbit from this planet.

Dr. Julian Lewis: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to provision F.1 of the treaty, which allows, as he will be aware, for a majority of states, if they deem any state to be guilty of a persistent breach of human rights, to withdraw all voting rights from that state? Will he guarantee that, if, against all our hopes, peace breaks down in Northern Ireland, the situation in Ulster could not be used as an excuse by other European Union members to deny Britain full voting rights?

Mr. Cook: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making the shadow Foreign Secretary appear to be in touch with reality.
First, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is not a majority of states: it is unanimity minus the one state that is under question. Secondly, that provision refers to persistent and serious violations of democracy and of human rights. I give him an undertaking that, so long as the Labour party is in power, it will not be possible to find 14 EU states that will agree that the Government are in serious and persistent violation of democracy or of human rights. If it is lurking in the minds of Conservative Members that their Government may be guilty of persistent and serious violations of human rights, I advise them to disclose that in their manifesto at the next election.
Those interventions reveal more about the invincible prejudice of Conservative Members and of those on their Front Bench—or at any rate those who have not yet resigned from their Front Bench—than they tell us about the treaty.
Border controls and territorial defence are two of the key attributes of the nation state. In relation to both, Britain emerges strengthened by the treaty to pursue our preferred national policy. For good measure, the treaty redresses the balance in favour of the nation state rather than of Brussels. There is a lengthy protocol on subsidiarity in the treaty. It provides that Community action can be justified only where its objective cannot be met by national action by member states.
The new Labour Government attach as much importance to subsidiarity as the Conservative Government ever did. Where we differ is that we believe that subsidiarity does not stop with the transfer of powers from Brussels to Whitehall. We are also prepared to practise subsidiarity at home, not just to preach it abroad; and, in the treaty, we have succeeded in achieving a good, legal and justiciable basis for the subsidiarity principle.
I should have thought that those were gains that Conservative Members would want. In a rational world, when the Division bell rang at 10 o'clock, they would vote to welcome the Bill, not to oppose it. I am told that they cannot do that, because the Bill brings Britain into the social chapter. That is right, and we are proud of it.
We have ended the insult to the British people that they are fit only for the worst rights at work in the whole of Europe. We have ended it, because we understand the modern world. We understand that we will never be competitive on the back of badly paid, poorly treated and badly motivated staff. The key to success is a skilled and committed work force showing initiative at the workplace.


The social chapter, which gives the work force the chance to share ownership in the company strategy, is a step towards that more competitive work force, and a committed partnership between management and staff, who help to make an enterprise succeed.
Of course we have signed up to the social chapter. We now have a seat at the table when it is discussed. Indeed, it is not just the Government of Britain who have a seat at the table when it is discussed. Because we have opted in, the Confederation of British Industry now has a seat when European employers discuss the social chapter.
I know that Opposition Members have problems with the CBI at the moment. After all, their leader dismissed as lemmings the great majority of CBI members who disagreed with the Conservative line on Europe. However, for the record, this summer the CBI got its first vote on the social chapter. It voted for the new directive on rights for part-time workers. I hope that, before Opposition Members vote down the Bill on the pretext that it brings in the social chapter and that they would be saving industry from the directives under the social chapter, they will note that, on the one vote so far, industry has voted in favour of the directive.

Mr. Tim Collins: In that case, will the Foreign Secretary explain why the latest edition of the CBI's Business Update states:
The government has stated that it shares our reservations
about works councils
but it can be overruled since this is one aspect of Social Chapter legislation which can be covered by QMV"?

Mr. Cook: For the hon. Gentleman's guidance, the current directive on the works councils has been rejected by the social partners, and the Commission has invited the social partners to negotiate. Only then will the Commission bring forward a proposal. When it does, we shall take our seat and make sure that the directive is amended in ways that reflect our thinking. We have already—because we have a seat—successfully amended the directive on the burden of proof, to make it wholly consistent with the existing state of British law.
If the shadow Foreign Secretary plans to found his entire vote tonight on the social chapter, I invite him to answer one question. During the general election, the former Prime Minister predicted that, if we joined the social chapter, Britain would have 500,000 more unemployed. In the first weekend after the general election, we said that we would join the social chapter, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State went to Brussels to say so on the Monday after polling day. In the six months since we stated that intention, unemployment has fallen by 190,000.
I invite the shadow Foreign Secretary to name one person who has lost his job through our intention to join the social chapter. [Interruption.] If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot answer that question, I can. The only people who have lost their jobs through the social chapter are Tory Members who fought the election telling the people of Britain that what was good enough for the rest of Europe was too good for the people of Britain.
The Opposition must now recognise that, in any case, there is no danger of a flood of prescriptive, unrealistic regulations from Europe. There is a changed tone in

Europe. Opposition Members could hear it if they did not always turn a deaf ear to the channel. They can see it in the employment chapter in the treaty. As a result of lobbying by the new Labour Government, that employment chapter now opens with the recognition that the key to employment is the promotion of
a skilled, trained and adaptable work force and labour markets responsive to economic change".
For the first time, the treaty recognises that employment and growth result from the flexibility that comes from skills, not the inflexibility that comes from over-regulation. For the first time also, the treaty calls upon the European Union to achieve a high level of employment.
When Opposition Members negotiated Maastricht, they wrote into the treaty of union a list of hard, precise financial and monetary targets. Those targets are now balanced by a commitment on the part of the European Union to achieve the objective of high employment. The employment chapter puts a duty on community institutions to take into account the objective of promoting employment when they formulate any community policy or programme. That is another provision where the Bill improves the European Union. There are many more.
I invite the shadow Foreign Secretary to point out which of those improvements threaten the survival of Britain as a nation. Is it the provision for better scrutiny of European legislation by national Parliaments? Because of the changes in the treaty of Amsterdam, the Commission is now required to produce every draft directive in all the languages of the Union six weeks before it is put on the Council's agenda. The requirement deals with one of the Scrutiny Committee's main complaints throughout the previous Parliament, when its members could not get an English text.
After a directive goes before the Council, any citizen will have a right to the documents and minutes of the Council's decisions and votes, ending the entirely unsatisfactory situation in which the Council of Ministers was the only legislature in Europe that met in secret.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The right hon. Gentleman asked what in the treaty should concern ordinary people who usually are not actively interested in politics. Will he comment on article 13—formerly known as article 6a—which is of concern to many religious groups? Religious groups representing 1 million members have written to the Prime Minister about the article, which outlaws discrimination.
There is great concern that some schools—such as Anglican and Catholic schools—that currently can insist on being run by a practising member of their denomination, may be banned from doing so by the article. Reassurances—for example, on a unanimity requirement—have been given. In the Grimaldi case, however, the European Court of Justice extended the law. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure all those groups that the Government are aware of the article, and take those worries seriously?

Mr. Cook: We take very seriously any worries that people might have that religious schools will be struck by any part of European legislation. However, the Bill and the treaty of Amsterdam do not do that. The treaty provides the basis for the Commission and the Council to


legislate on grounds of discrimination wider than simply gender discrimination. It is, however, only an enabling clause; it is not itself a directive or a binding law.
The Council and the Commission would have to make proposals to put into effect any new measure against discrimination. In those debates and in that Council meeting, Britain would have a full voice, as would the many countries of the European Union that have religious schools. Therefore, that anxiety is entirely unfounded, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure his constituents.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: No; I must press on. I have been generous in giving way, and I will give way again shortly.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has pointed out one of the treaty's other improvements: it provides for legislation against discrimination on a Europewide basis. Britain has one of the largest groups of ethnic minorities anywhere in Europe. It is therefore particularly in our national interest to ensure that members of those ethnic minorities should be protected against discrimination when they exercise their rights under the treaty to travel or to work on the continent.
As some hon. Members will know, disability groups within Britain lobbied very hard to obtain that provision. As a result of British lobbying, a specific declaration is attached to the treaty requiring the Community's institutions to take account in any directive of the needs of the disabled, thereby opening the door for them to meaningful consultation.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I am absolutely astounded by what the right hon. Gentleman said immediately before he answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). It seemed that he was claiming credit for having brought to an end the really quite scandalous situation in which the Council of Ministers is the only closed legislature in the world. He said that, now that the votes will be published, that will no longer be the case. He knows perfectly well that the problem will not be addressed at all by publishing votes, because votes are very rarely taken.
The legislative sessions of the Council of Ministers should be open to the public, and the television cameras should be there—so that the arguments that are adduced can be followed by the public, the changes of position by national representatives can be followed by their electorates, and the deals that are done can be seen through. The Council of Ministers remains closed. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman's Government, with France, have opposed opening the legislative function of the Council of Ministers. It is disingenuous of him to suggest otherwise.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman in his last point is absolutely wide of the mark. We were pressing throughout the Amsterdam summit for the widest possible opening. I treat the hon. Gentleman with some respect, because he has shown courage and independence of mind on this matter, but if his complaint about this treaty is that it does

not go quite far enough in openness, I cannot quite understand why he will fail to vote for it, given that it offers an awful lot more openness than there is at present.
I should like to press on to other areas of improvement.

Mr. Davies: What about the social chapter?

Mr. Cook: We have dealt with the social chapter. I fully understand the pressures applied to the hon. Gentleman, and I will not hold it against him if he votes against the Government tonight. He knows perfectly well that, if the social chapter were the only thing holding together Opposition Members, they could have let the Bill pass, and dealt with that matter perfectly adequately in Committee had they wanted to do so.
There are other improvements of which I understood Opposition Members were in favour. There is a new protocol on animal welfare which defines animals as sentient beings rather than agricultural products. That change has enormous support among animal welfare organisations throughout Britain.
There is another change that improves the Union. The treaty commits the Union to sustainable development, and insists that protection of the environment must be integrated into the formulation of all Community policies. That is a welcome step forward, given the threat to the environment that has sometimes occurred in the past from Community policies, including agricultural policy.
If none of those improvements persuades Opposition Members, if none is welcome on the Opposition Benches, surely there would be a welcome for the provision in the treaty for tougher powers on fraud. The provision empowers the Council to take the necessary measures against any member state that fails to counter fraud against the European Community just as they would fraud against their national budget. The people of Britain want their money used effectively; the people of Britain want Europe to crack down on fraud, and the treaty enables us to do that.

Mr. William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: I cannot resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman, but if he will let me, I shall proceed a little further, and then give way.
I can understand why, against all those improvements, the Leader of the Opposition decided that a referendum may not be a great idea. It would be difficult for Conservative Members to campaign against such a collection of improvements to the European Union. I can also understand the right hon. Gentleman's reservation about having a referendum, because, although he may be able to coax all his party into the Lobby tonight, he of course has no idea which side they would support in a referendum when the Whips were safely out of earshot.
Only a month ago, Norman Lamont praised the Leader of the Opposition's latest decision on the single currency, saying:
It has already created a more united party.
Sadly, Mr. Lamont may be a little out of touch, since he is no longer with us in the House, because history has dealt unkindly with that prediction. One month later, there have been so many expressions of dissent on the


Conservative Benches that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) got headlines for the unusual news story that he was a Tory who was not resigning.
The Tory party has been too busy having its own referendum to have a referendum for the real people of Britain. If it consults the real people of Britain, it will find that the provisions in the treaty that I have outlined are welcome throughout the whole of Britain—except in the Tory party.
I understand, though, that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), has one last criticism of the treaty with which I have yet to deal: the treaty extends qualified majority voting. Yes, it does. It extends QMV precisely to 15 areas. That is exactly half the number of areas to which the Maastricht treaty extended QMV during a period in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman sat throughout in the Cabinet.
Moreover, both the Maastricht treaty and this treaty are as nothing in their extension of QMV as the truly massive extension of QMV from the Single European Act 1986.

Mr. Giles Radice: The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was in the Government all the time.

Mr. Cook: And voted for it.
Having swallowed whole those two banquets of extensions of qualified majority voting, it is humbug to gag on the bite-sized extensions in the treaty.
In any case, those extensions are sensible. We have talked about the new powers on fraud. They have to operate on qualified majority voting. If they did not, any member state that was being penalised would have a veto. Is that what the shadow Foreign Secretary wants? Does he want countries that milk the budget to have a veto on action against them?
Of course the new provisions on transparency are triggered by qualified majority voting. Otherwise, those countries that wanted to keep a cloak of secrecy could do so by retaining a veto. Is that what the shadow Foreign Secretary wants? Does he not recognise that it is in our interests to ensure that a member state that wants to keep secret something that it does not want to do in public should not be allowed to do so?

Mr. Cash: Will the Foreign Secretary take note of the fact that Mr. Joe Carey, an eminent member of the Court of Auditors, has written an important paper on the way to improve methods of dealing with fraud in the community? In the previous Parliament, there were exchanges on the role of the Public Accounts Committee. The suggestion was made that we should insist on other member states applying the same criteria for determining fraud as we use in our Public Accounts Committee. That would establish a proper network of control over fraud. Is that the Government's intention? Are they pressing for such measures?

Mr. Cook: We could not get agreement on applying the British standard in other countries. However, the treaty says that every country has to apply to European spending the same standards and tests that it applies to its

domestic spending. We must apply the system we use for our national budget to European spending in Britain. The same steps must be taken in every other European state.
There are sensible, practical reasons for the extensions of qualified majority voting in the treaty. However, there is one other, larger reason—the enlargement of the Union. Within the next decade or so, it is possible that the European Union will have not just 15 members, but 26 members. The Council of Ministers will face paralysis if even a decision on the award of a research contract has to be passed by unanimity, with each of the 26 countries clutching a veto, as the Conservatives apparently want.
The rest of Europe is queuing up to get into the European Union. There are a dozen applicant countries. They want in because they recognise, as the Opposition apparently do not, that membership of the European Union could give them greater prosperity through more trade, greater security through political co-operation with their neighbours, and greater clout in international negotiations than they could have by themselves. The European Union's historic mission is to open its doors and embrace the new democracies of central and eastern Europe.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Many of the aspects of the treaty that the right hon. Gentleman calls advantages are undoubtedly advantages. We were negotiating them when we were in government. The sin of omission in the treaty is the one that he has just put his finger on—its failure to anticipate enlargement. The deficiency in his negotiating position is that, when agreeing to the social chapter, he did not demand a trade-off that the treaty would contain the institutional changes that could have hastened enlargement to the east.

Mr. Cook: We signed up to the social chapter not to be nice to the rest of Europe, but because we believe that it is in the interests of the people of Britain. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right about the reform of institutions on one level. Changes will be necessary before enlargement. Some of them will be tough changes. Applicant countries will need to make changes to their economies, and there will have to be changes in the European Union.
One essential change is a rebalancing of the votes in the Council of Europe to protect the larger countries from being out-voted by a growing number of smaller countries. I am pleased to say that we have had it explicitly written into the treaty that that issue of the rebalancing of the votes in the Council of Ministers must be addressed before any further enlargement takes place.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Cook: I am sorry, but I will not give way. I have been generous so far, and I must at some stage allow the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to make his speech.
One of the great gains of reaching agreement at Amsterdam is that that has cleared the way forward for enlargement. The provision, as hon. Members will know, is that negotiations on enlargement were timed to start six months after the completion of the intergovernmental conference at Amsterdam. If we failed to reach agreement at Amsterdam, it would still be ahead of us at the coming Luxembourg summit. That would have meant that


enlargement negotiations could have started only in the latter half of next year. As it is, they will now start during the British presidency.
As a nation, we have a golden opportunity to show the other member states of the European Union that Britain can set a direction for Europe, and we have an opportunity to prove to the applicant countries that they have a reliable ally in Britain. None of that would have been possible if we had failed at Amsterdam.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Sir Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Cook: I have given way for the last time.
We did not fail at Amsterdam—we succeeded, because the Government have transformed Britain's relations with our European partners. Britain is now respected as a constructive partner with which the other countries of Europe can do serious business. It is no longer resented as a persistent opponent which sabotages the business of Europe. Because of that, we got a better deal for Britain than the Conservatives ever could have achieved.
We went to Amsterdam determined to put border controls for Britain on a secure legal foundation. We came back with that agreement. We went to Amsterdam determined to retain a veto on defence and foreign policy and to preserve NATO as the cornerstone of Britain's defence. We came back with that agreement. We went to Amsterdam determined to extend to the British people the same rights at work that are enjoyed by the other peoples of Europe. We came back with that agreement.
We went to Amsterdam determined to put jobs at the top of the agenda of Europe and to bring in an employment chapter that recognises the importance of employability and adaptability. We came back with that agreement. We went to Amsterdam determined to make Europe more accessible and transparent to its citizens, and more committed to protecting those citizens from unemployment, an unhealthy environment and discrimination. We came back with that agreement. Finally, we went to Amsterdam determined to obtain agreement on tougher powers to deal with fraud against the Union—a fraud that cheats the citizens of the Union. We came back with that agreement, also.
More important than any one of those gains—important though they are—is the fact that we demonstrated that Britain is back where it belongs, in the main stream of Europe, and therefore able to negotiate a deal that is better for the people of Britain and better also for the people of Europe. That is the basis on which I commend the Bill to the House. I ask all hon. Members from all parties who want to keep Britain a leading partner in Europe to join us in the Lobby tonight to vote for a Bill that will be good for Europe, and good for Britain.

Mr. Michael Howard: Today, the House has the opportunity to assess the action taken by the Government at Amsterdam on behalf of the British people and to judge whether the Government's rhetoric after the summit matched the action taken at it. Above all, we have the opportunity to vote on the Amsterdam treaty.

We should judge that treaty in the light of the challenges facing our nation. We should judge it on its impact on British competitiveness and British jobs, and on its consequences for the people of eastern and central Europe who yearn to join the European Union. We should measure the skill of those ace negotiators on the Government Front Bench by the way in which they protected and enhanced British interests.
On each of those criteria, Labour's performance at Amsterdam was lamentable. The truth is that Labour failed. Of course, one would never get that impression from Ministers' words. The Foreign Secretary returned from the summit claiming a negotiating triumph. But then, he also claimed that his recent tour of India was a great success.
The right hon. Gentleman's first six months as Foreign Secretary have been utterly disastrous. From Washington to Islamabad and from Jakarta to Delhi he has put his foot in it—and his long-suffering officials have been left to pick up the pieces.
The right hon. Gentleman is not the first Labour Foreign Secretary to act in that way. When one of his predecessors upset a distinguished foreign guest, his officials were asked for an explanation. "The trouble with the Foreign Secretary," they replied, "is that he is not very good with foreigners."
At least the current Foreign Secretary appears to recognise his own shortcomings. Eager to avoid another diplomatic incident in a sensitive area, he has, I understand, recently cancelled his planned trip to the middle east. The sad reality is that the best contribution that he can make to peace in that region, or indeed in any region, is to stay well away.
It must be especially galling for the Foreign Secretary that his task today, on his first important appearance at the Dispatch Box since taking office, is to defend the Amsterdam treaty—a treaty designed to deepen the European Union, not to widen it. After all, it was he who said that the European Union would succeed only if
it can jettison the dead ballast of the efforts at integration which offend national interest".
At least the right hon. Gentleman appears—not in his speech today, but elsewhere, last week—to have grasped the fact that what his Government signed up to at Amsterdam is not quite the brilliant deal that they originally thought it. Last week he was forced to admit to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that there had been a "misunderstanding" in the early hours of 18 June. That, he explained, was why he had failed to challenge a late amendment by the Spanish Prime Minister that handed Spain a powerful bargaining chip on Gibraltar.
Of course, the Foreign Secretary was quick to make it clear that that was not his fault, and assured us that he had not, as some had suspected, nodded off during the negotiations.
This was one of the areas",
he said,
where I have to say that our satisfaction with the note-keeping of the Presidency was not as much as we would have wished it would be".
The right hon. Gentleman did not tell the Select Committee how he proposed to remedy the deficiency. Will the Prime Minister bring a tape recorder to any future discussions that he has with his European colleagues,


or will he insist that note-taking at such meetings be added to the responsibilities of the Minister without Portfolio? What is clear is that the Foreign Secretary cannot be trusted either to raise such points at the right time, or even to take a proper note of them.
The point at issue was not an esoteric detail but one of the many so-called triumphs on which the Prime Minister preened himself when he reported back to the House on the outcome of the Amsterdam summit. It relates to the sensitive area of asylum and immigration.
This is what the Prime Minister said about those subjects to the House on 18 June:
We have no obligation to be in that at all, but what we have secured, which is important and a better way of going about things, is what I call an opt-in. We have the power within the treaty to go into any of these areas if we want to. If we do not want to, we need not, but if we do, no other country can block us going in."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997: Vol. 296, c. 319.]
Strong words—but the Prime Minister was wrong.
As the Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee last Tuesday, each of the other member states will have a veto over a future opt-in. Any one of them can "block us going in". If at any time Britain wanted to opt in, in whole or in part, to those arrangements, Spain, for example, could block us unless we were prepared to make concessions on Gibraltar.
When will the Prime Minister apologise for his and the Foreign Secretary's negligence, and for giving the House a thoroughly misleading account of the outcome?

Mr. Robin Cook: As I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman's complaint, it was that we agreed to too much qualified majority voting. He now seems to be complaining because there is provision for a veto in the Bill. If he reads the evidence that I gave to the Select Committee, he will see that we secured a declaration of the whole Council, which clearly sets out that admission to the Schengen acquis will be on the basis of an opinion of the Commission, and that any member, including Spain or any other country, is obliged to use its best efforts for us to join.
There is no question of our making any concession over Gibraltar to obtain access. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making such a fuss, is he really suggesting that a future Conservative Government would want to accede to the articles of the Schengen acquis and thereby give up Britain's border controls?

Mr. Howard: I am dealing with the Prime Minister's claim. Is the Foreign Secretary suggesting that the declaration to which he referred, and by which he now apparently sets so much store, has any legal effect? The amendment that the Spanish Prime Minister secured is part of the treaty; it has binding legal effect. I suggest that the Foreign Secretary is cautious before he claims that the declaration has any legal effect to compare with that of an amendment to the treaty, which is what he failed to prevent.

Mr. Cook: The declaration is binding on all members. It is a declaration of the whole Council, to which the whole Council, including Spain, committed itself.

Mr. Howard: The Foreign Secretary did not answer the question, which is whether it is legally binding and

has the same legal impact as an amendment to the treaty. If he does not appreciate the importance and significance of that distinction, he is not fit to hold his office. It is no good prattling on about whether it is binding. The question is: does it have the same legal effect as the amendment to the treaty that the right hon. Gentleman failed to prevent?

Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must understand that any accession to Schengen will be a political judgment by the Council. The declaration is binding on all the members that made it, including Spain, which did not object to it.

Mr. Howard: We have the answer: it is not legally binding. The Foreign Secretary was free to confess to the Select Committee last week, and I do not know why he does not confess it to the House now, that, as he said, a misunderstanding took place; a mistake was made. The Spanish Prime Minister's amendment should have been blocked, but was not, as a result of the Foreign Secretary's negligence.
The Government have been quick to claim the credit for what is in fact an opt-out on border controls, even though they do not like to call it an opt-out, because when they were in opposition they said that they were against any permanent opt-outs. That opt-out was secured by the previous Government.
It is not necessary for the Foreign Secretary to scour the cabinets to find out about the opt-out. He need only look at the Financial Times of 12 February 1997, well before the general election. It states:
After a decade of battling against pressure to open up the frontiers as part of the EU's single market, the UK now seems certain to be offered an 'opt-out' from a new treaty agreement which is expected to set 2001 as the target for banishing customs and police checks at national ports. Mr Michel Patijn, the minister for European affairs in the Netherlands, said it was now an accepted political fact that the UK's borders would not be given up in the interests of EU integration".
The deal was done before the general election. The Foreign Secretary had the task of putting it into the treaty to reflect the agreement that had been reached, and that is what he has done.
That was not the only make-believe triumph for which the Prime Minister claimed credit when he returned from Amsterdam. He said that real progress had been made on quota hopping. Before the general election, as Leader of the Opposition, he was keen to give the impression that there was no difference between his policy on quota hopping and the then Government's. He told the BBC's "The World at One":
we certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest. … where Britain's interests are at stake we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are.
Bold words, but when it came to the summit, the Prime Minister lacked the stomach for a fight.
Terrified of being isolated in Europe, the right hon. Gentleman was too frightened even to back the protocol for treaty change tabled by the previous Government. Instead, he settled for a worthless letter from the President of the Commission restating existing policy. Why? Because, in the Prime Minister's own words, the other member states did not support the proposed treaty


changes. So much for being prepared to hold up the intergovernmental conference. So much for being prepared to be isolated.
With that feeble attitude, the previous Government would never have negotiated Britain's opt-out from the single currency, never have won Britain a rebate and never have gained an opt-out from the social chapter. I hope that, at the end of the debate, the Minister of State will tell the House whether the letter from the President of the Commission has any legal authority, and exactly how the provisions set out in that letter differ from the previous arrangements on quota hopping.
The truth is that there has been no progress on quota hopping and, not surprisingly, British fishermen feel betrayed. What will be the attitude this evening of hon. Members on the Government and Liberal Democrat Benches who represent fishing constituencies? Can we expect any of them to stand up for their fishermen tonight and vote against the treaty? I suspect not. I hope that I am wrong, but if I am right, I hope that we shall not see those hon. Members getting up in future to complain that the right to fish in British waters is being lost to our industry and transferred to the fleets of other member states. Unless they vote against the Bill, those hon. Members will be letting down their fishermen and letting themselves down.
So the treaty is as bad for what it omits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, as for what it contains. The purpose of the IGC was, after all, to prepare for the enlargement of the European Union, a cause that Conservatives have long put at the top of the European agenda. Nowhere was the disappointment with the outcome of Amsterdam more keenly felt than in the countries of eastern and central Europe.
If the European ideal means anything, it must mean healing the divisions that have scarred our continent. Enlargement is the historic challenge of our generation. Most of the candidates for membership of the European Union come from the eastern part of our continent. They lived under the heel of a cruel tyranny for more than 50 years. They yearned for freedom throughout that period. They see membership of the European Union as setting the seal on that freedom. It is our duty to help them.
However, at Amsterdam, enlargement was sidelined for the sake of deeper integration. None of the reforms necessary for enlargement was tackled. There was no streamlining of European bureaucracy, no decentralisation of decision making, no pan-European liberalisation, no serious constitutional reform. If the European ideal means anything, surely it must mean bringing all the peoples of Europe together. That objective has not been advanced by this treaty.
The treaty contains provisions that are objectionable. Qualified majority voting has been extended to 15 new areas. By definition, that means that we can be forced to accept policies even when they are against Britain's interests.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how his party imagines that the European Union can expand without gridlock unless qualified majority voting is extended?

Mr. Howard: If one takes the view that the only way forward for the European Union is to impose some rigid

straitjacket of uniformity on every member state in every respect of the treaty provisions from Finland to Greece, the hon. Gentleman is right, but there is a different way forward, which does not require every member state to sign up to absolutely every aspect of every respect of the treaty. If that way forward is taken, it is not necessary to have more qualified majority voting in order for enlargement to take place.

Mr. Robin Cook: A moment ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was complaining about a veto for Spain; he is now objecting to the extension of qualified majority voting to the research budget. Has he not noticed that Spain is currently blocking and vetoing the research budget, unless it gets a guarantee for its structural funds? If he is so concerned about Spanish vetoes, why does not support us and take that veto away from Spain?

Mr. Howard: Because, as the right hon. Gentleman ought to know, we have used that veto on the research budget to good effect in the past. That is the way forward—to reach a consensus, even though that might take some time. He knows perfectly well that when I was talking earlier about his so-called opt-in, it was the Prime Minister's wrong, false and misleading claim that I was disputing, and it is about time we had an apology for that.
As powers are taken away from national Parliaments, they have been given to the European Parliament. Under the co-decision procedure, the European Parliament is put on almost the same footing as the Council of Ministers. It is given the power to veto proposals put forward by the Council of Ministers, and it is able to use that power to insist that those proposals reflect its views. The treaty extends co-decision to 23 new areas, including such important matters as social policy and transport policy.
The treaty also diminishes the freedom of member states to appoint Commissioners of their choice. In future, the European Parliament will have to approve the appointment of the President of the Commission; and the President of the Commission has been given a new power to veto the appointment of other Commissioners. What on earth was the justification for that change? It takes power away from democratically elected Governments and gives it to an unelected official in Brussels. Why did the Government agree to it? What benefits will that bring to Britain? I hope that the Minister of State will answer those questions when he winds up the debate.

Mr. Roger Casale: How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think proper accountability and scrutiny can take place without extending co-decision making to the European Parliament in areas where qualified majority voting applies in the Council of Ministers? Is he suggesting that qualified majority voting, which was greatly extended by the Government of which he was a member, should be abolished?

Mr. Howard: I thought that I had made it clear that I am not in favour of extending qualified majority voting in the treaty, or of extending the co-decision procedure. Accountability comes via national Parliaments, which hold their Governments to account for the way in which they cast their votes in the Council of Ministers. That is proper democratic accountability.

Mr. Dalyell: Forgive me, but I am just a little puzzled about all this. Am I wrong in thinking that the


Conservative Members of the European Parliament have expressed themselves in favour of all the things that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says are so terrible?

Mr. Howard: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman consulted the Labour Members of the European Parliament before expressing any view on these issues. Of course, doing so would not have been very profitable, because, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, Labour Members of the European Parliament have been gagged and are not allowed to say anything on these and other matters.
On the changes to the common foreign and security policy, will the Minister of State confirm that, once the member states have agreed to adopt a common strategy, it will be possible to implement decisions by qualified majority voting? Will he tell us what is meant by a common strategy? It is nowhere defined in the treaty, so will he explain that when he winds up the debate?
Next, I come to the treaty's human rights provisions, to which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) referred. Let us be clear about the fact that we place great importance on human rights; but the provisions in the treaty are wide open to abuse. It will be up to the member states to judge whether a country is guilty of serious and persistent breaches of the treaty's human rights provisions. There will be no independent arbiter and no right of appeal. Once found guilty, the member state concerned will not be expelled, but will instead have all its rights suspended, including all its voting rights, while continuing to be bound by its treaty obligations. If it is felt necessary to deal with the problem, why does not the treaty simply provide a power to expel those member states?
When the Prime Minister returned from Amsterdam, he said that he had put jobs in their rightful place at the top of the European agenda. We whole-heartedly agree that jobs should be at the top of the agenda, but how does the Prime Minister square that pledge with his acceptance of the social chapter and the new employment chapter in the treaty? Despite his pathological reluctance to face inconvenient facts, he must be aware that unemployment in this country is lower than in the rest of Europe. Here it is falling because we have a much more flexible economy and fewer burdens on our businesses. He must also be aware that his fellow socialist Governments seem hellbent on increasing the burdens imposed on business by Europe and that they want those burdens imposed on Britain so that we lose our competitive advantage over their economies.

Mr. John Gummer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also examine this curious anomaly? If one is reasonably friendly towards the idea of a single currency, one must believe that we need as flexible a labour market as possible in those circumstances. Many of the ways in which we would otherwise deal with matters of distortion from one part of the European Union to another would no longer be in our hands. Is it not therefore surprising that those who want a single currency, or who are even more friendly towards the idea than some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, would proceed to make the European Union less flexible

in that area, whereas they should have insisted on the British opt-out, to encourage others to follow them in pressing their case for a single currency?

Mr. Howard: It would be surprising, if one expected any clear thinking or consistency from the Labour party, but we already know, on the basis of the Government's record of the past six months, that it is idle to expect any clarity of thought or consistency from them. I therefore confess that I am somewhat less surprised than my right hon. Friend.
The question is: why on earth have the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister handed to the other countries of Europe the means by which they can impose on this country burdens that will impair our competitive advantage? After all, the Government are perfectly free to adopt any employment and social policy measures that they believe would boost employment in Britain because they have such a big majority. The social chapter, by definition, means that measures can be forced on us even when the Government do not believe that they are good for jobs.
For a long time, the Prime Minister tried to deny that that was so. Before the election, he tried to assure the Confederation of British Industry that he could prevent measures from being foisted on British business as a result of the social chapter, but even he has long since been forced to abandon that pretence. Last week, the Prime Minister was pressed on that by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and he confirmed that the Government oppose the Commission's latest proposals to extend compulsory works councils. However, because the Government have abandoned our opt-out from the social chapter, and because of the provisions of this treaty and this Bill, the Prime Minister will be powerless to prevent that.
This is a bad treaty. It is bad for Britain and for Europe. The agreement reached by the Labour Government in Amsterdam was very different from that which a Conservative Government would have reached. We stood resolutely against the social chapter, whereas Labour signed up to it. We opposed the new employment chapter, which would expose British businesses to new costs. Labour signed up to a new employment chapter, extending the European Union's role to determining employment policy.

Mr. Radice: I have been listening carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech and his arguments against this Bill. Does he still believe that the Amsterdam treaty amounts to a threat to the nation state, as he used to say?

Mr. Howard: What I said in the quotation that the Foreign Secretary used in his speech was that the agenda for the Amsterdam summit posed a serious threat. Some aspects of that threat did not come to pass—no thanks to the British Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there were on the agenda even more extensive proposals for qualified majority voting than were implemented at Amsterdam. What was implemented at Amsterdam is bad


enough, but the agenda was very much worse. It is no thanks to the Prime Minister or the Government that that agenda was not fulfilled.

Mr. Robin Cook: I am very interested in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply. Does he now think that the treaty does not pose a threat to the national interest or the future of Britain? Has he abandoned that criticism?

Mr. Howard: Of course the treaty poses a threat to the national interest. If the social chapter is used to impose burdens on British business which will damage our competitiveness and destroy jobs, of course that is a threat to British interests. That must be clear to all.
What we were discussing in the earlier exchanges were some of the constitutional implications which were originally on the agenda for Amsterdam, but not all of which have come to pass. Some have, and they are bad enough.
We opposed a new employment chapter that would expose British businesses to new costs. Labour signed up to a new employment chapter extending the role of the European Union into determining employment policy. We were pledged to win Britain an exemption from the damaging effects of the working time directive. Labour did not get a deal; in fact, the Government did not even try.
We opposed further extension of qualified majority voting. Labour signed a treaty that removed the veto of member states by extending QMV to 15 new areas. We said no to giving the European Parliament more power at the expense of Westminster. Labour agreed to give the European Parliament the power of veto in 23 new areas.
We pledged to curtail the excesses of the European Court of Justice. Labour abandoned our attempts to reform the workings of the court, and signed a treaty that does much to extend the remit of the European Court of Justice and nothing to reform it.
We pledged that we would insist on measures to stop quota hopping by foreign fishing vessels, and Labour came back with a worthless letter.
Finally, and perhaps most disappointing of all, we considered enlargement our key priority at Amsterdam; Labour signed a treaty that did nothing at all to further the cause of enlargement.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howard: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once.
The treaty is a wasted opportunity. It is also a victory for those who want a deeper, not a wider, Europe. The Government view our Parliament's powers with disdain. Since taking office, they have consistently whittled them away, parcelling them off to assemblies elsewhere in Britain, to Europe, to the Bank of England and to an unelected judiciary.
We Conservatives are proud of our Parliament. We believe that the United Kingdom is immeasurably greater than the sum of its parts; that power should be vested in

those who are democratically accountable, not in unelected officials; and above all, that Europe will succeed only as a union of independent nation states.
The Amsterdam treaty further erodes the sovereignty of Parliament. It is a wrong turning for Britain and for Europe. The Bill would incorporate it into British law. I urge the House to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Donald Anderson: So awful is the treaty which has been described that perhaps the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), were he still in government, would have vetoed it. Had he done so, he would have kept the United Kingdom in isolation from Europe, with enormous damage to British interests.
Perhaps it would be helpful to the House to descend from the fantasy politics which we have just heard and to examine the realities of the European situation and of the modest treaty before us. The treaty disappointed the aspirations of the Europhiles and the fantastical fears of the Euro-sceptics. I would have feared for our country, had the right hon. and learned Gentleman still been in office, with his worries of "them" ganging up against "us". If the previous Government had vetoed the treaty, that would have postponed for a substantial time the enlargement of the European Union, which he claims to espouse. The treaty is modest, and amounts to a tidying up of the Maastricht inheritance. It realistically reflects the mood of our times.
I turn first to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, whose report is before the House. We had hoped to produce a full report for the benefit of the House, as our predecessors did with the Maastricht treaty. Part of the problem was the Committee's late formation towards the end of July. The Government's decision to hold the Bill's Second Reading so soon meant that we were not able to provide that service to the House. We are not convinced that, if they had willed it, the Government could not have scheduled the Second Reading after the Christmas recess; the House could then have had the benefit of the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
In the event, the Committee was able to meet only my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last Tuesday and the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of Gibraltar on the following day. The reports of those sittings are now before the House. We met the Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition of Gibraltar because those senior politicians had expressed concerns on behalf of Gibraltar in their memorandums.
The result in practice is that prima facie there is a veto available to Spain over the extension of the Schengen agreement, which has particular relevance for Gibraltar, and, further, that the British Government might have to choose between our own perceived interests and those of Gibraltar. However, since there is no prospect of any British Government joining the Schengen acquis in the foreseeable future, that dilemma is unlikely to arise in practice. The events of 18 June were most unfortunate. I should add in parenthesis that both the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of Gibraltar made accusations against both this Government and our predecessors about failing to look after Gibraltar's interests in general. Those allegations must be examined carefully.


To understand the significance of the treaty, it must be viewed in context. In his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that the treaty
demonstrates that the high tide of integrationism in Europe was reached at Maastricht and that high tide is now at something of an ebb.
He described that as a "major step forward". By contrast, other commentators, such as Ian Davidson in the Financial Times, remarked with sadness on the same point:
the integrationist model of the European Union is approaching the limit of what is politically acceptable to the nation state.
It is not as simple as that: a dynamic debate will continue about the frontiers of the nation state and the supranational entity. Clearly, the mood governing of the post-Maastricht agenda is, in part, a revolt by the people against those elites who went beyond what the people could accept at Maastricht. There is now greater caution and greater pragmatism, which were enshrined in the Amsterdam treaty. The protocol on subsidiarity, to which my right hon. Friend properly alluded, would not have been possible at Maastricht. Similarly, in Amsterdam, even Chancellor Kohl stood against certain extensions of qualified majority voting, partly because of his compact with the Lander over economic and monetary union. That would not have been possible at Maastricht.
In essence, I submit that the treaty was based on modest aims and resulted in modest gains. Clearly, the response of the Conservative party shows that it has learnt nothing from the isolation of the previous years which so damaged our interests in Europe. Indeed, Lord Howe described the Conservatives' stance on EMU as
a purpose-free piece of ideological posturing.
His preface to a pamphlet issued by the Action Centre for Europe says:
A worrying number of Conservatives have become trapped in a damaging mind-set, believing that creating artificial divisions and whipping up synthetic indignation on Europe can deliver political dividends. It cannot.
That is the world of fantasy politics which we have heard from the Opposition today. A good example was their exaggeration in respect of the human rights clause. The clause has a simple aim: to ensure that there is a guarantee that future members of the European Union— there are no anxieties about existing members—continue to respect human rights or face potential sanctions.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Could the clause, which provides, of course, for legislation to be made –1 tried to ask the Foreign Secretary this question—be used in the European Court of Justice for actions by groups?

Mr. Anderson: No—partly because of unanimity, partly because of the safeguard of the two thirds majority in the European Parliament, and partly, of course, because it would have to go to the European Court of Justice as well. Anyone concerned with human rights should see it as a safeguard, a protection, in respect of the European

Union. I hope that anyone who looks at it in a fair-minded way would reach that conclusion. It is indeed fantasy to suggest that it poses a threat in any way to this country.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am so sorry, but I asked a different question. Could it be used by the Court?

Mr. Anderson: rose—

Mr. Howard: I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that the European Court of Justice was a safeguard in relation to this clause, but it has absolutely no involvement at all. The decision is taken entirely by other member states.

Mr. Anderson: It is one of the hurdles against which actions in respect of sanctions would have to be measured. I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would welcome the fact that Europe is based not just on trade and commerce but on a set of values and human rights, which are enshrined, for the first time, in the treaty. It is equally absurd to suggest that within the modest steps on external policy there lurks a future European Foreign Secretary. There is a pragmatic change to meet the needs of the European Union as it develops.
It might properly be argued that, given its modest dimensions, historians will state that the Amsterdam treaty is far less relevant to the future of Europe than the other two engines for change that we now have—monetary union and enlargement. European monetary union is outside the scope of the treaty, and its greatest sin of omission is the failure to prepare for enlargement by re-weighting.

Mr. Radice: Is it not the case that negotiations for enlargement could not begin until the treaty of Amsterdam was signed? In a sense, the whole thrust of the arguments of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), that somehow the treaty of Amsterdam is blocking enlargement, is nonsense, like so much of the rest of his speech.

Mr. Anderson: The ending of the intergovernmental conference was the essential prerequisite, six months afterwards, to the start of negotiations on enlargement. In July, the Commission published its Agenda 2000. In many ways, that document deals with issues that are more relevant to enlargement than institutional changes such as re-weighting—issues such as the changes to the common agricultural policy and structural funds. Agenda 2000, which is to be discussed at the Luxembourg summit, is thus perhaps more relevant to enlargement than the institutional changes.
There is a danger of a coalition being formed of those who might be adversely affected by enlargement. They would include the Iberian countries and those who benefit from the cohesion funds, who would stand to lose from the financial adjustment. The important point is that the agricultural and structural funds now account for 85 per cent. of total European Union expenditure. Meanwhile, smaller countries, including the Scandinavian countries, fear that they will have less clout as a result; and there are those who fear the effect of the farming of Poland on their benefits from the common agricultural policy.
I only hope that there is sufficient historical perspective within the Union to allow such concerns to be seen only as negotiating points. The key is to re-create Europe by


enlargement, to invest in democracy and to help to build a new zone of stability to the east. In building such a zone, it is also important to ensure that, when the favoured five, plus Cyprus—that is likely to be confirmed in December—are helped in the pre-accession period, the gulf is not deepened between those favoured five and those that are excluded: Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia.
I am worried about the sums available for the pre-accession period. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will consider that at the Luxembourg summit. There is an enormous disparity in the transfer of resources to new members. Over the period in question, for the favoured five the amount is 57.4 billion ecu, but it is only 17.4 billion ecu for the other applicants. That could, at first sight, deepen the divide between those that have aspirations to join the Union but do not as yet qualify, and those that are in the initial basket. In fact, the new countries can act as a bridge for those with aspirations further to the east and south.
Despite the signal failure to prepare for enlargement on the institutional side, Amsterdam will surely be seen by historians as a modest success. The Europe that will emerge will be more realistic, tidier in its procedures and more relevant. In terms of its relevance, I think of the strengthening of Community competence in areas such as health, consumer protection and co-operation in crime prevention—and, of course, the new employment chapter.
In his Dublin speech, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out the priorities —the people's priorities—for the presidency. I believe that this is part of the process of rescuing Europe from the elites and bringing it closer to the people. I am delighted that one of the Government's initiatives—taken with the Austrians, who will follow us next into the presidency—is to ensure that those priorities do not die at the end of the six months, and that the baton is then taken up by the Austrians and thereafter by the Germans in helping to re-create Europe in a more popular way.
I fully support the significant steps that have been taken in terms of external policy. The response to Europe's place in the world in the second pillar is a good example of the practical spirit of the treaty. There will be no great thrust towards a European Foreign Minister. There already is much policy co-operation in such areas as the accession treaties, foreign trade policy, the exchange of personnel and the work that is done in our diplomatic posts overseas.
The changes are mainly about mechanisms, but they are important mechanisms. I applaud the compromise on decision-making procedures, with the possibility of a constructive abstention. I also applaud the establishment of a new and continuing body to prepare and deal with implementation of the common foreign and security policy, and the new roles for the EU Secretary-General, the high representative, and the policy planning unit.
The new relationship with the Western European Union is also important, given that the treaty says in clear terms that NATO is and remains the cornerstone of our defence policy. For the Petersburg tasks, such as peacekeeping, the Western European Union will be the arm of the European Union.
On democracy, there is greater transparency in terms of access to European Union documents. There is also greater parliamentary control. I do not worry about the limited extension of qualified majority voting. I know that that triggers the co-decision procedure and a new role for the European Parliament, which is an elected Parliament. If we are serious about democracy, we must ensure that each cluster of power, be it in the European Union, at Westminster or in Scotland and Wales, must be subject to proper parliamentary accountability.
I am extremely pleased about the protocol on the role of national Parliaments, which provides for six weeks' notice. The House's Scrutiny Committee has pressed for that very strongly.
I have spoken about the Europe that will emerge. Europe is unique and sui generis. We should not seek to build a fantasy creation of our own imagination. In the past few months, I have travelled extensively and talked to European colleagues. There is a new spirit abroad following 1 May. No longer do we see doors barred to us: we are perceived to be part of a team working together to achieve common objectives. As Lord Howe has said, it would be "purpose-free ideological posturing" if we did not seek speedily to ratify this measure.

Mr. Eric Forth: This will be the first time that I have been able to speak to the House on this subject as a free spirit since July 1988. I hope that the House will bear with me if I am somewhat rusty, and if I cannot slip as readily as the Foreign Secretary and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) into the phrases and words of Europe. I used to be able to do so in my dim and distant past, but I cannot any more, and I shall probably not try.
I want to air my worries about the old-fashioned concept of nationhood. My great fear is that we are losing sight of that concept in the developing debate about Europe. I was delighted when the Foreign Secretary picked up that theme in his opening remarks. I was grateful to him for that, although whether it divides him from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a matter for some thought. I was encouraged by the fact that he cast his remarks in terms of the nation state. I think that he used the phrase "the survival of the nation state". That gives me some encouragement, because at least it is now on the agenda.
Given the Chancellor's arguments on our possible membership of the single European currency, my fear was that the only factor that would decide whether we went ahead with membership would be a perceived or claimed economic benefit: the narrow claim about whether we would be better off. I think that it was even narrower than that at one point, as a result of the Government's new love affair with the Confederation of British Industry. They seemed to be saying that, if we could show that British membership of a single currency would benefit large firms that are members of the CBI, that would be sufficient justification and the argument would be over.
However, what the Foreign Secretary has said today broadens the debate, and that was proper and necessary. The treaty gives the House an opportunity to do that, and I am sure that, following the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the House will take that opportunity.


We are therefore talking about the incremental effect on our nationhood and national interests of a succession of measures—the treaty of Rome before we joined, the accession treaty and the measures since then. As the Foreign Secretary again rightly pointed out, the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty and the Amsterdam treaty have, increment by increment, led to our greater involvement in the EU's workings and institutions.
With his typical candour and integrity, the hon. Member for Swansea, East made it clear where he saw that process leading. I picked up an interesting phrase of his. He referred to a "dynamic debate" about the "frontiers of the nation state". To him, the concept of the nation state is a moveable feast. It is negotiable and can be cut and adjusted to what he would no doubt view as the absolute imperative of our EU membership.

Mr. Donald Anderson: That is not the import of what I said. There is clearly a frontier, a creative tension, a dynamic, at any one time between the nation state and supranational demands, to many of which we shall accede for environmental and other reasons—it makes sense. The point is that there is no absolute fixture. The juggernaut towards supranationality has faltered. That is clearly shown in the modest accommodation in the Amsterdam treaty.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his elucidation. I suspect that he said "faltered" with a slightly regretful tone. I think that he would rather it had not faltered, but, even if it has, that does not alter the debate that we must have about the extent to which our increasing involvement in the Europe that most of our partners want is in our national interest. In the end, that is the only thing that matters to me.
The argument for us joining the EU in the first place was that it would enhance our national interests. Therefore, we have a duty to the people we represent constantly to revisit that issue and to ask ourselves whether the way in which the EU is developing is in our national interests. It is here that I part company from even some of my senior colleagues, who talk of this in terms of inevitability. They have said for many years that the EU is developing in certain ways, that that is inevitable and that there can therefore be no further argument about our participation either in the debate or in the EU's development. I could not dissent more strongly from that view.
What should be inevitable is that we ask ourselves the question: is the way in which the EU is developing in our national interest? Can it be demonstrated that it will benefit us as a people, not just in a narrow economic sense but in the sense of the overall reality of nationhood? Will that be enhanced or threatened by the way in which the EU is developing?
Let us take a small, but significant, example. The Foreign Secretary made some play of the fact that the extension of qualified majority voting in the treaty was of little consequence. He said that that was a practical measure and perfectly okay, and asked what everyone was getting so excited about. He then challenged us—I hope that I have made an accurate note of what he said—to give an example of where 14 other member states would gang up on us and do us down under extended qualified majority voting.
The interesting thing is that, just this morning, I had the delight and privilege of sitting in European Standing Committee A, where the Minister for the Environment took us carefully, courteously and knowledgably through the landfill issue. He said that he feared that, because we relied more on landfill than on incinerators to dispose of waste, our partners could not understand our problem with their wish to force us to use incineration more and landfill less. The Minister said clearly that he doubted whether he could persuade them to come around to our view.
I leave aside the new chumminess and partnership that are being created in Europe, so we are told, let alone the leadership role that the new Government were supposed to have—until I read yesterday that we were now dropping it quietly. My point is that I suspect that, in that Committee, we had an exact example of what the Foreign Secretary said would probably never happen: "Why should we be afraid?" he asked.
I grant that that is a small example, but that is the sort of thing I am talking about—gradual and incremental encroachment by the institutions and procedures of the EU as it develops and as the Amsterdam treaty seeks to develop it. That example may not be so significant in itself, but, if we add it to what has happened and, even more, to the aspirations of our partner member states, a different picture emerges.
That is what the treaty means to us. It involves more than the narrow focus that the Foreign Secretary gave us, and I know why he did so. Having opened the debate in terms of the nation state and its survival, he wanted to ensure that the House focused narrowly on the treaty's specifics, seeking to reassure us that it was of little or no significance. The significance —the Foreign Secretary will understand this, although I can see why he would not want to admit it to the House—is what lies beyond Amsterdam and what our partners' aspirations are. Do we as a people feel comfortable with those things? I certainly do not feel comfortable with them.
We are approaching a critical point in the development of our relationship as a nation state with the EU. If our partners persist in trying to develop the closer political union that they keep writing into almost every treaty and in posing a threat not just to our national institutions but to our ability to compete in the global marketplace as a nation that is uniquely reliant on trade, that may lead us as a nation state to ask ourselves: does our continued EU membership benefit us? If that happens, the blame will lie at their door.
I cannot understand why our EU partners do not realise that, particularly in view of the proposed enlargement, with which I have always disagreed.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Another division.

Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman want me to give way?

Mr. MacShane: indicated dissent.

Mr. Forth: The almost universal drive towards enlargement could, at worst, threaten the EU's whole existence, which is why I cannot understand why everyone wants it. With that in mind, the EU would be well advised to develop itself in a way that was sufficiently flexible to allow not only countries such as


Britain but the new aspirants to feel comfortable with the way in which it worked, allowing us to say to our constituents, "You need not have the fears that are so often expressed to us."
Just today, two constituents have been expressing their fears about Europe, the way in which it is developing and the effect that it might have on things that they prize and are important to them. Whether we call them way of life or nationhood does not matter particularly, but we all know what we are talking about—or we should know what we are talking about.
I want to repeat my gratitude to the Foreign Secretary for widening the debate. My fear was that the Chancellor was going to try to ensure that, over the next few crucial years, the European debate would be focused ever more narrowly, so that the basis on which we were persuaded to commit ourselves more and more to the way in which Europe was going was ever narrower and therefore easier to justify. In this debate and with the words of the Foreign Secretary, we have a welcome opportunity to consider the issue on a broader front and in greater context, and to pose the question to ourselves and, ultimately, to the electorate: do we believe that the way in which the European Union is developing benefits us as a nation and as a people? Our relationship with the other EU member states and our future in the EU will depend on the answers that we give to that question from time to time.

Mr. Stephen Pound: I am new to the ways of the House, so I am not sure whether it is appropriate or acceptable for me to say that I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) extremely helpful and illuminating and I was pleased to have heard it. I do not intend to be disrespectful, but it contrasted with the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who seemed to concentrate his fire entirely on my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, on whom he made an unjustified personal attack, rather than address the issues.
Although the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rather extended the ambit of the debate beyond Amsterdam back to Maastricht and almost to the treaty of Rome—I suspect that that was not unintentional—he raised some important and percipient points.
As I said, I am new to the ways of the House, so I evaluate new legislation by limited criteria. The first is whether it is in Britain's interests. The Amsterdam treaty is overwhelmingly and demonstrably in Britain's interests, not just in respect of border controls, defence and the social chapter, but throughout. It certainly passes my first test.
We have heard a great deal about concepts of nationhood and nationality—those debates can be abstruse, but there may be a place for them—but Amsterdam also covered issues that affect my constituency in west London. One of the key developments that was covered in Amsterdam is the co-ordinated trans-European approach to crime. Europol was set up at Maastricht and it has been vastly strengthened by articles K.2 and K.9 of the Amsterdam treaty.
Like many others, my constituency in west London suffers the scourge of drug dealing. Although I would like to spend night after night debating definitions of nationality and nationhood, I spend a great deal of my time dealing with the debris and the crises caused by drug dealing on the streets of my constituency. The problem has to be addressed on the widest possible scale. The support for Europol in the Amsterdam treaty is the first chink of light, the first ray of hope for a co-ordinated attack.
Crime does not respect national boundaries and nor do criminals. Crime fighters must have the power to attack trans-national and international criminals. The progress made at Amsterdam on that important issue is one of the main reasons why I support the Bill.
People who are as old as I am and many who are not so old can remember the days of "Dixon of Dock Green" when crime was a local issue. The good, honest local criminal burgled only the next street. Then criminals got bicycles or Minis, and inter-city gangs sped up the M1. [Interruption.] I am in no way implying that Lord Tebbit's father had any responsibility for that.
Nowadays the police have to respond to a new pattern of criminal behaviour that is having disastrous consequences for many of our constituents. It involves drugs, money laundering and the trade in nuclear materials—something that I find astonishing. We cannot address international crime by withdrawing into our island state. Crime involves drugs, fraud and car theft, and has to be fought on a continental and international basis.
As a result of Amsterdam, Europol will be able to act in support of national police agencies. That makes the greatest sense, but Europol will have no operational role without the agreement of all member states. I suggest that article K.2 of the treaty is a pragmatic and sensible response to a modern pattern of criminal activity that cannot be addressed in any other way. People may say that if we were not part of the EU we could still have an FBI for Europe. I do not consider that to be a remote possibility. It simply could not happen. We could not refuse to participate in all the links and exchanges of information through the documentation and the joint computer systems that Europol is working on.
I apologise for concentrating on one sector, but having heard the quality of many of the earlier speeches, I know that a great many hon. Members can speak with far greater authority and knowledge on other specific subjects. I have concentrated on an issue that matters a great deal to me personally and to others who represent urban and inner-city constituencies.
Our participation in Europol is yet another demonstration—if one were needed—of the benefits to the United Kingdom of our continued and deepening membership of the European Union.
We have heard much about national sovereignty. What defines a nation is something far stronger than the subject we are debating today. A nation cannot be defined by a treaty, an Act or any of the issues that we have discussed today. It represents far more. I cannot believe that any of us here who speak for our nation feel in any way diminished as Britons, Scots or Welsh by the Amsterdam treaty. If we did, we would have a pretty weak nationalism.

Mr. Forth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that what defines a nation will rarely, if ever, be found in a treaty.


My concern is that what threatens the nation may well be contained in a succession of treaties, and that we must be ever vigilant about that.

Mr. Pound: What threatens the nation has been addressed by the Amsterdam treaty specifically and not hypothetically. I cannot comment on what may happen further down the line. Today we are under threat, and in many ways Amsterdam addresses and responds to that threat. What happens in future will be discussed then. The Government have returned from Amsterdam with the best possible deal for Britain in Europe and the best deal for Britain and Europe.
I am no slavish lickspittle of the Front Bench; I am far too new to the job to have acquired such habits. I would be prepared to make the effort, but at the moment I simply try to speak my mind.
Earlier on, I was accused of trying to incorporate the Petersburg tasks into a somewhat unfortunate incident that occurred at Ealing town hall yesterday morning when a rocket was fired at the end of the two minutes' silence. It soared into the air and then fell to earth and ignited five cars in the car park. That is not why I am speaking today. I hasten to add that Ealing town hall is just outside my constituency.
The British Government have returned from Amsterdam as victor. They have secured an excellent deal for Britain. I do not know whether it is appropriate for me to commend it to the House, but if it is I do so, not just for myself as an individual but for us as a country. It is good for Britain and for Europe.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I cannot help thinking that the independence of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) may be modulated by membership of the Foreign Affairs Committee or participation in the annual trip to the United Nations; this institution has many remarkable ways of ensuring loyalty to the Front Bench. Indeed, there will be a demonstration later this evening from the official Opposition of how loyalty to the Front Bench can be assured.
If we are to believe the Foreign Secretary, the Amsterdam summit was a triumph; if we are to believe the shadow Foreign Secretary, it was a disaster. They cannot both be right, but they can both be wrong—and they are.
The Amsterdam treaty is really a rather mild-mannered document that does not justify the apocalyptic consequences attached to it a moment or two ago by the shadow Foreign Secretary. He was right when he said that the treaty is more notable for what it omits than for what it contains.
The shadow Foreign Secretary told hon. Members who represent constituencies with fishing interests that, unless we go into the same Lobby as him today, we will be betraying the fishermen we represent. If he wants a sense of betrayal, he should come with me and talk to fishermen in my constituency, who feel a very deep sense of betrayal about the 18-year stewardship of British fishing interests by the Government of which he was a member.
As we are dealing with the European Union, I should mention the sense of betrayal about the continued and entirely unjustified refusal of the Conservative

Government to provide adequate funds to match the money that was available from Brussels to decommission fishing vessels. Some of the problems of too much fishing effort—which hon. Members with fishing interests in their constituencies know about—could have been ameliorated if the Government of which the shadow Foreign Secretary was a member had taken a much more active role in promoting decommissioning by using the funds that were available.
It is quite right that all hon. Members are opposed to quota hopping, but we should remind ourselves that that practice has arisen because of the sale by British fishermen of licences, particularly to Spanish fishermen. Nothing was ever done by the previous Government to prevent those sales. Time after time, the Fisheries Council's December meetings were foreshadowed by statements that there would be no deal unless the issue of quota hopping was dealt with. Time after time, however, there was a deal; and time after time quota hopping was not dealt with.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman concede that the previous Government tried to do something about quota hopping but that our hands were tied by court judgments such as that in the Factortame case? It was not a matter of our lacking will. The will was certainly there for the intergovernmental conference—when the Foreign Secretary singularly failed to win any agreement.

Mr. Campbell: It is difficult to blame a Government who had been in office for perhaps six weeks when the Amsterdam treaty was negotiated for problems that were not capable of being dealt with by the Government that had responsibility for them for an entire 18 years.
One Fishing Council after another, we were told—the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) may attempt to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because he had responsibility for fishing at the time—that there would be no deal in December unless quota hopping was resolved, but it never was.

Sir Richard Body: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: No, I shall make some progress.
A moment ago, I said that the Amsterdam treaty is more notable for what it omits than for what it contains. What is certainly true is that the challenge of enlargement has not been properly met. Specifically in the context of Amsterdam, there was no effort at common agricultural policy reform, without which enlargement will be financially impossible.
As hon. Members have already observed, no effort had been made to deal with the institutional implications of enlargement. How will larger member states be compensated for losing their second Commissioner? How will voting rights be rebalanced within the Union? If the European Parliament is capped at 700 Members, how many Members will be allocated to each member state? How will Commission portfolios—which are sometimes matters of great controversy —be allocated among Commissioners if there are more than 20 of them? Such functional issues demand early resolution if enlargement is to proceed.


The treaty contains modest progress on common foreign and security policy, with protection of the United Kingdom veto. It provides limited extension of qualified majority voting. It accepts closer co-operation with the Western European Union but recognises the primacy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It creates greater clarity on subsidiarity and allows the United Kingdom to have some say on the social chapter.
Those are pretty modest achievements. They can be only modest achievements, or the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—who takes an interest in these matters —would not be justified in describing Amsterdam as a "mouse of a treaty." He might have been a little more restrained in his metaphor if he had known that his support for a single currency would later cause the leader of the Conservative party to describe him, at least by implication, as a lemming. One has only to look at the right hon. and learned Gentleman to realise that neither his physical nor his intellectual bulk entitles one to describe him as a lemming.
Perhaps the mere use of such language—lemming is a silly description—tells us quite a lot about the Conservative party leadership's intentions towards the European Union. Such language sits particularly uneasily with a professed and much published desire to have an informed debate on a single currency.

Mr. Forth: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is not relevant for the House simply to be invited to examine each treaty or measure in isolation, having been reassured that, "There is not much in it—so don't worry"? Does he agree that hon. Members are entitled to consider the totality of treaties and measures and the cumulative effect that they will have on our country and on our relationship with the European Union? At what point will he allow us such broad consideration?

Mr. Campbell: To echo something that was said earlier in the debate, I do not know whether my next comment will damage me more than it will damage the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that he made an honest speech. I have absolutely no difficulty with the totality of legislation currently directing the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union, and the Liberal Democrats have never had such a difficulty.
In 1961, my party was the first to force a Division in the House on the matter. There were only six Liberal Members, but they forced a Division on the question of Britain's application to join what was then the European Community. They were defeated by several hundred votes to four—because they had to provide two Tellers and only four Members were able to go through the Lobby. We were proved correct on the matter very soon thereafter. Britain should have applied, and Britain did apply. I think that our membership has been entirely to the benefit of the people of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made an honest speech in which he argued that matters have to be considered in the totality. I do not believe that Amsterdam represents any great leap forward that will destroy the values of the nation state, to which he and others obviously attach great importance. The rhetoric of the Conservative party leadership now seems to suggest that it has embarked on an anti-European pilgrimage of rather uncertain destination.
Never before—I am assuming that Conservative Members will vote according to the comments made in this debate by the shadow Foreign Secretary—has the Conservative party voted against a European treaty as a whole; this will be the first time. Moreover, it will be no selective cull of offending provisions but a launch into a systematic anti-Europeanism that has only one logical conclusion: advocacy of withdrawal.

Mr. Collins: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: No, I have given way already.
It will take brave spirits among Conservative Members to reverse that drift of opposition. To preserve even a flaccid unity on Europe, the Conservative party will require rather more than the temporary stimulus of opposition to the social chapter. Conservative Members may go into the same Lobby today—with one or two notable exceptions—but I predict that opposition to the social chapter will not sustain them very long after 10 o'clock tonight.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I am enjoying the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. He said that, today, the Conservative party will for the first time vote against a European treaty. Is he aware that it is the first European treaty that has not been negotiated by a Conservative Government? Had we negotiated it, it would have been a better treaty and we would have been able to support it.

Mr. Campbell: I suppose that there is a lot to be said for self-confidence, particularly after 1 May 1997. It seems that that bonding down on the south coast had some effect and created such an aura of self-confidence that the only treaties that can ever be in the interest of the people of the United Kingdom are those that have been negotiated by Conservative Members. It is quite remarkable. I therefore wonder why Conservative Members attach such importance to the treaty establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—the principal bulwark of British defence—which was negotiated and entered into by a Labour Government.

Mr. Streeter: That is not a European treaty.

Mr. Campbell: Ah, I see. It is not a European treaty; it has Americans in it. I suppose that the logic of that is that one can trust only the Labour party with the Americans.
What is in the treaty that should cause such offence? In my respectful submission, nothing at all. Much of what is in the treaty ought to be welcomed by the Conservative party. The United Kingdom keeps control over its borders, as we have heard. The primacy of NATO in European defence has been reasserted. The more ambitious plans for a common European defence policy outlined in the Maastricht treaty have been postponed—at least for some time. Even France has recognised NATO's vital role in continental defence and security.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. and learned Gentleman is going through aspects of the treaty of Amsterdam of which I am heartily in favour, but that is not the issue


before the House. We are discussing the Bill to introduce into United Kingdom law certain aspects of the treaty of Amsterdam—not the treaty of Amsterdam itself. Included among the aspects that we are debating and which the Bill would bring into UK law is the social chapter.

Mr. Campbell: I shall come to the social chapter in due course, but it is worth putting into context the contents of the treaty, against which we must test whether we are willing to support the Bill.
As I said, foreign and security policy as a whole remains intergovernmental. There has been no move to incorporate it into the first pillar. There is some provision for the use of QMV in issues of common foreign and security policy, but member states will be entitled to reject such decisions for
important and stated reasons of national policy".
Any decision with military or defence implications cannot be taken by QMV.
Efforts to improve—as I would see it—co-ordination and leadership of foreign policy have also been watered down. There is to be no independent foreign policy supremo.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: No, I intend to try to make some progress.
The Secretary-General of the Council is to pass through some limited form of mutation to turn himself into a high representative under the Council's firm control in foreign policy matters.
Majority voting—it is true—has been extended. It will apply to such dangerous, damaging issues as compensatory aid for the import of raw materials and the adoption of the research framework programme. It is to be applied to issues of fraud. The Foreign Secretary's justification for that should have persuaded anyone in the House who has any anxiety about ensuring that value for money is obtained by the British taxpayer for any sums that go from this country to the European Union. It is to be applied in transparency. It is also to be applied—I do not believe that this has been referred to—to protection of individuals in relation to the use or processing of personal data about them. In such areas, QMV is clearly in the interests of the United Kingdom and in the interests of individual citizens of the United Kingdom.
QMV will not be extended to the right of free movement or to industry matters. As has already been pointed out, there is now a proper definition of subsidiarity, which shifts the burden of proof on to those who would support European Union action. A long list of criteria and provisos has to be satisfied before the EU can proceed. The Commission has to justify itself whenever it proposes a new measure.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) pointed to the fact that the social chapter is one of the issues with which the Bill is concerned. If that is the basis on which the whole of the official Opposition are invited to oppose the Bill's Second Reading, it is a pretty flimsy basis indeed.
The social chapter has resulted so far in two particular measures. First, there is an obligation on large companies to establish works councils—something that more than

57 United Kingdom blue chip companies have already done, including BP, British Airways and many others. It is precisely the kind of industrial relations in successful companies which the whole House should support.
The other measure is a minimum requirement for parental leave. The qualifying conditions for parental leave are to be set by domestic Governments. So, in effect, a domestic Government can nullify the provisions by hedging them around in any way in which they choose.
Under the opt-out, which the official Opposition regard with such importance and significance, measures agreed by other member states would have applied to British firms operating in Europe without the British Government having had any influence on their contents. Serious opposition to the Bill cannot be sustained on such a flimsy basis.
Sir Leon Brittan, who I doubt very much will be invited to support his former parliamentary private secretary in the pending by-election in Winchester, argues today in a national newspaper:
it is necessary to take a view of the treaty as a whole".
That is exactly right. Just as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst wants us to take a view of the totality of legislation in relation to Europe, it is right to take a view of the Bill as a whole. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches take such a view and, like Sir Leon, we have no doubt that its acceptance is in Britain's national interest.
We all know that the House will not reject this Bill; what I hope it will reject is the blinkered opposition of the Conservative leadership.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I shall try to be brief and to emulate the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—another pro-European—in two respects: I shall speak without notes if I can, and I shall endorse the treaty. Nevertheless, I have one or two reservations about the final text.
I understand that the Patronage Secretary—the Chief Whip—receives each day a report about what is said by Labour Members. I hope that it will be reported that I support Parliament endorsing the Bill.
Before I come to the implications of the treaty for Gibraltar, I turn to the European Parliament. I notice—and regret—that the treaty enshrines in perpetuity Strasbourg as the seat of the European Parliament. Although that is not something about which people in Tilbury lie awake at night worrying, it is a pity that it should be in the treaty. The European Parliament should definitely be able to decide where it sits. It is illogical that it should have to sit in Strasbourg. Similarly, Europol's headquarters has been fixed at The Hague.
My main reason for speaking is to express concern at the way in which successive British Governments have treated the people of Gibraltar—a fact that is highlighted by the Amsterdam treaty, in which Gibraltar is referred to as a "territory" and never as "Gibraltar". Article 4 substantially disadvantages that colony for the future.
We have heard that there is no immediate prospect of the United Kingdom wishing to opt into the Schengen acquis. It may be some decades before we do so, but inevitably a Government, of whatever party, will wish to do so at some stage. Unanimity is required among the


other member states for Great Britain—and Ireland—to go into Schengen. That puts a powerful tool at the disposal of the Spanish Foreign Ministry. The Spanish can say that the United Kingdom can come in minus Gibraltar. If there is no change in Spain's historic attitude to Gibraltar, I think that they will exercise that option.
A useful report appeared in The Irish Times of 7 July, which I suggest hon. Members may want to find in the Library. It sets out in considerable detail the final hours of the Amsterdam negotiations. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with that. I understand that the Spanish proposal on article 4, relating to opting in to Schengen, was not challenged. When it was subsequently discovered that the treaty text required unanimity for opting in, the Dutch presidency replayed the tapes—of which it was the custodian—which showed that the proposal had not been challenged. Some explanation of what happened is required.
That episode also illustrates how not to conduct negotiations. Under the United Kingdom presidency, I hope that we shall ensure that any future negotiations are not time limited. All states should have good time to ensure that there is clarity and precision on what has been debated. That is fair to all parties involved.
I visited Gibraltar, with other hon. Members and the Foreign Secretary's Parliamentary Private Secretary, in the summer at the invitation of the Gibraltar Government. It was made clear to us, time and again, that they are left out of negotiations. Reference has been made to British interests. This is the Parliament of Gibraltar; there is no other. It is true that there is a local legislature, but there is a democratic deficit, because the people of Gibraltar are not represented here. Their Foreign Secretary is the Foreign Secretary who is answerable to this place.
If Ministers answerable to a Scottish Parliament may, in future, accompany Westminster Ministers to discussions and councils in Europe, that principle should be extended to the elected representatives of Gibraltar for matters that directly affect the interests of Gibraltar. I implore the Minister to think about that and also to ask his colleagues in the Government to reflect on it. Many international discussions affect the people of Gibraltar. Their interests should not be excluded.
The Government are no different from the previous Government in that respect. The Conservative Government of recent years consistently neglected the interests of the people of Gibraltar. It has now become endemic in Foreign Office thinking—not the Ministers'—that the people of Gibraltar are just also-rans and do not need to be worried about. That is wrong. It is time that we stood up and said that that cannot be tolerated. Other territories of other countries are taken into account by their negotiators. That is necessary for Gibraltar, too.
The article in The Irish Times makes it clear that the episode was not the fault of Mr. Bruton or of our Prime Minister. The speed and timing of the negotiations were unsatisfactory. I hope that the British presidency will mark a new standard in the conduct of negotiations.
I endorse the opening comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). As well as making similar comments to mine on Gibraltar, he said that the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which he is the Chairman, should have had more time to consider

the treaty. Labour Members were elected with a mandate and a desire to improve the status and influence of Select Committees. I am proud of that. Even if it is inconvenient for the Government, Ministers must meet the needs of the independent scrutiny Committees. I use the word "independent" deliberately. It is not easy to make the comments that I have made, but as long as I am in the House, I intend to guard jealously the right to scrutinise the Executive—Labour, Conservative or any other party. There is always a danger of that being eroded.
I endorse the treaty, and I hope that the Bill will be passed, but I also hope that we can amend it in Committee to ensure that, if Britain ever wishes to enter Schengen, it goes in with Gibraltar, or that the people of Gibraltar have a say in—

Mr. Radice: The treaty cannot be amended.

Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend says that the treaty cannot be amended. I know that, but we can amend the Bill that brings it into effect. I understand that the amendment that I have canvassed with the Clerks may well be within the terms set out in "Erskine May". I have anticipated the point that my hon. Friend, who has been here many years, has raised. I am well aware of what can and cannot be done to a treaty and a Bill.

Mr. David Curry: I regard the treaty of Amsterdam rather as I regard many of the young men who pursue my twin daughters. I have nothing much to say against them and not a great deal to say in favour of them. It is a nondescript document, noteworthy largely for what is not in it rather than what is.
I welcome the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, again largely for what was not in them. I welcome the absence of any reference to a referendum or to renegotiation. I am sure that my hon. Friend who winds up will wish to sustain such admirable reticence in his comments.
To our mutual surprise, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I will be in the same Lobby tonight. I should like to point out what is good about the treaty, within its great limitations. It maintains a clear distinction between what is done on an intergovernmental basis and what is done on an integrated basis—the so-called pillared approach, in the dreadful jargon that has overtaken European institutions and many others.
A more pragmatic attitude is beginning to develop in the European Union. That is a welcome reinforcement of the idea that differential integration within a clear framework is compatible with the way in which the European Union can develop. That is evident in the provisions relating to Schengen, with the rider that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and others have mentioned about the Gibraltar glitch. It is evident in the provisions for the incorporation of the asylum and immigration controls, within the integrated framework from the original pillar. Those who have decided not to be part of it can decide to opt in. It is also evident in the terms for foreign policy collaboration, the status of which can be transformed within the union.
That is sensible, permitting member states to remain outside and giving them a differential means to opt back in. There is a two-way differentiation in the way in which


co-operation is envisaged. That is a welcome change from the monolithic dirigisme and integrationist imperative that has been too dominant in the European Union.
I welcome also the human rights clauses, and I do not think that they are a threat. The European Union has to be seen not only as an economic opportunity for aspirant member states, but to some extent as a civic and democratic guarantor. If it is not that, it does not deserve to be anything.
That role is especially necessary with the new states of eastern Europe, which do not have rooted democratic cultures. If the treaty included a provision to expel, and one of those member states found itself under an inimical and anti-democratic Government, its expulsion would do nothing to give it an incentive to change its ways and return to a democratic system. The treaty is sensible in putting the sanctions at the current level.
I also welcome, in general, the extension of qualified majority voting, because it has been the mechanism that has delivered British objectives in Europe more comprehensively than any other measure in the treaty. The single market, which was an outstanding British objective, would not have been delivered without qualified majority voting. How often did I hear Mrs. Thatcher, who was a distinguished Prime Minister, say that we wanted a real common market. Qualified majority voting delivered a significant part of that real common market, and I hope that it will continue to do so.

Mr. Forth: Can my right hon. Friend envisage circumstances in which qualified majority voting might operate against the British national interest?

Mr. Curry: In all qualified majority votes, some get what they want and others do not. Europe is a kaleidoscope of shifting alliances in which nobody is ever dominant and nobody is ever oppressed, and that is the key to it. If my right hon. Friend checked the history of United Kingdom demands and requirements against the occasions on which we lost, he would find that Britain did not usually lose. Indeed, I remember how, when the French did not seem to know what they wanted from the European Union, they lost year after year in the Council of Ministers, because nobody knew whether it was worth negotiating with them.
I accept that qualified majority voting inevitably raises issues of accountability. Therefore—I realise that many of my hon. Friends do not agree with me, but I shall say it unrepentantly—I welcome the modest improvement and simplification of the powers of the European Parliament. We must avoid a geometric concept of power in the European Union that suggests that anything that goes there must necessarily come from here, because that dynamic does not represent the true circumstances in the European Union. The question is how we attain accountability for functions and decision taking that are already federalised, if I may use that word. I do not believe that the House can achieve that, because qualified majority voting makes it difficult for any legislature to bind a Minister who has to take part in negotiations in the Council of Ministers.
If a Minister has any sense, he will seek to participate in a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers, rather than being locked out. That means that he has to negotiate. He will not be easily bound by injunctions placed on him

by his national Parliament. A Government are likely to look over their shoulder at their Parliament only when their majority is precarious. If, for example, there is a multi-party coalition, their majority will be at risk if they come back with something that the Parliament does not like. But even if a Minister is subject to sanction by a Parliament, it does not alter the decision that he has taken. The mere fact that he is subject to sanction may render him incompetent, in the real sense of the word, at negotiating in the Council of Ministers, and less able to defend his national interest than would otherwise be the case.
I have no great enthusiasm for the European Parliament per se, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I spent some years as Members of it. However, I have concluded from watching the European Union as a journalist, as a member of the Council of Ministers, as a Member of the European Parliament and as a Member of Parliament, that the effective way to achieve accountability must be for an institution to enjoy the same sort of supranational status as the Council, if it is to work in practice. That is a pragmatic conclusion, not a principled or ideological one.
I come to what is wrong with the treaty—again, it is the omissions. One could argue that the human rights clause anticipates enlargement. I accept that enlargement negotiations may now begin because the treaty has been agreed. However, the truth is that the reform of the institutions, which we all agree is urgently needed, has not yet started. We talk endlessly about reform—including reform of the voting in the Council of Ministers, of the way in which the presidency is held and of the way in which the Commission is constituted. Those issues sound tedious and bureaucratic, but they go to the heart of the ability of member states to influence the European Union and the ease with which its business can be dispatched effectively. That will require another treaty, and, indeed, the Heads of Government have admitted that that is inevitable.
Europe has a long and melancholy history of failing to take decisions in good time and thus having to improvise or go beyond what might have cured the problem had it been dealt with earlier. The reform of the common agricultural policy is a classic example. However, I caution people about talking too glibly about the reform of the CAP, because I have never yet come across a reform that did not cost more than the original it replaced.
I am also hostile—for the reasons that many of my hon. Friends have explained—to the incorporation of the social chapter. I do not like it and I do not like the introduction of the employment chapter. When the Foreign Secretary was boasting about the employment chapter, he neglected to remark that it was a platonic addition to the treaty. He also did not say that the British Government had worked with the Germans, with enormous enthusiasm, to denude of any real purpose the proposals made by France, Italy and Sweden. The Foreign Secretary rejoiced in the chapter, and I gather that he also rejoices in the fact that it means practically nothing in reality.
The way forward for employment is through supply-side measures, such as the liberalisation and deregulation of sectors such as transport and telecommunications, and not through intervention. We must look out lest employment policies are used to counter the strong anti-inflationary policies of a central bank which will eventually manage the single currency.


Europe should be about politics, not religion. If every time Europe is mentioned, the so-called Europhiles are supposed to apply uncritical acclaim while singing the "Ode to Joy" and the Euro-sceptics are supposed to leap to the barricades while belting out "Land of Hope and Glory", we are condemned to the politics of immature polemics. I hope that we can avoid that in the House.
The British response to developments in Europe follows a pattern. We start by saying that whatever is proposed is not necessary. We then say that it will not happen. We then say that it will happen, but only later. We then say that it will happen, but it will not work. We then say that we need not join, and then we say, "Help!" The result of that syndrome is that we tend to decide to join late, grudgingly and when the framework has been set.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that we have to decide whether we will be full-hearted members of the organisation or whether we will get out. Do we want to be in or out? As matters stand, with our late, grudging accession, we have neither independence nor leadership. That is a sad situation that is not worthy of the traditions and history of this country.
I also say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that there is no eternal or immutable concept of a nation state. The nation state that Gladstone or Palmerston managed is wholly different to the nation state that is feasible in today's world. Economic interdependence and the movement of money and technologies have changed the practical reality of the concept of the nation state. If we are to defend the nation state, we must realise that the concept does not have an eternal verity. We must judge it in the light of the realities of changing circumstances, as I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree.

Mr. Forth: Of course my right hon. Friend is right, but does he accept that a time may come when what one might regard as the irreducible elements of a true nation state—which the members of a nation state feel comfortable with and believe to be necessary—might be threatened by unwanted developments in the European Union? Is that a possibility?

Mr. Curry: The concept that my right hon. Friend suggests might be threatened. Equally, I would argue that a Europe without a European Union in it would feel infinitely more threatened by the developments that would have taken place in the post-war world—notably the absence of restraints on the development of Germany, an economic powerhouse with its 80 million people, and the probable preferred partner of the United States—than what threatens us within that framework. But that is a wider debate, which I should be delighted to continue with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Cash: rosex2014;

Mr. Curry: I promised to be brief, and I am on my last paragraph. I want to give other hon. Members a chance.
I believe that the treaty is a poor one, which fails in its central task. It is not a wicked treaty; it just does not do the job. That is why, with an absolutely clear conscience, I can vote against it tonight.

Mr. Mike Gapes: It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry); 97 per cent. of the contents of his speech would be warmly endorsed by most Labour Members. It is a pity that we did not hear such speeches from him when he was a member of the Conservative Government. Nevertheless, it was good to hear one today.
I spoke in European debates several times in the previous Parliament, and I am struck by the difference in tone today, compared with those interminable hours in Committee on the Maastricht treaty. The heart seems to have gone out of the Europhobes. They have not got the enthusiasm—

Mr. MacShane: Where are they?

Mr. Gapes: That is an interesting question. The Europhobes do not seem to have the same enthusiasm for their cause any more. I suppose that, when people have fought a general election in which most of their colleagues were wiped out, although the previous Government said that they would stop the show—let us remember all those "show stoppers" that the former Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee about when he came before us to give evidence during the previous Parliament—and when people see that, despite Mr. Sykes's millions, their party went down to humiliating defeat, that leads to some reassessment of the situation.
The tone has changed, but there are still a few individuals who, as the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), showed us, are still capable of artificial hysteria about this modest treaty. That was the description used by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
The Amsterdam treaty is modest, but it represents a major achievement—[Laughter.] Oh yes, it does. It is a major achievement, because the Conservative party told us that there would be no treaty—that they would lay down lots of clauses and conditions to stop the treaty, and make sure that it did not emerge.
The Tory press and the Europhobes in general also told us that the new Labour Government would not be capable of signing any treaty that was in Britain's interests, because our continental partners would walk all over us. On the contrary, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has just revealed, the treaty contains some important achievements, which are in the interests of our country.

Mr. Forth: Modest.

Mr. Gapes: The treaty is modest, but it is positive, too, and only a change of Government made it possible to achieve it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

Mr. Gapes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think I am capable of looking after myself.
The treaty was achieved by a Government who did not say, "We will reject everything that comes from across the Channel," but who said instead, "We will engage


positively with our partners, build alliances and work together for a better European Union, to prepare the basis for future developments that will come with the British presidency from January, and for the future enlargement negotiations which the treaty makes possible."
I always fail to understand how, if the Conservative party was really in favour of enlargement, it could adopt the strategy of saying that there would be no agreement. Agreement was necessary to unlock the process of enlargement. Moreover, if Conservatives were in favour of enlargement, why on earth did they oppose the extension of qualified majority voting in any area? That is a palpable absurdity. It is impossible to have any enlargement of the European Union without extending QMV to make the Union work effectively.
I think that the treaty has done enough to enable the enlargement process to begin, but not enough to make it possible to conclude that process successfully. Therefore, we shall have to return to the issue in the discussions that will result from the enlargement negotiations over the next few years.
I hope that, by that time, the Opposition will have had another think. If they really want enlargement to succeed, and the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and perhaps in time the Baltic states and other states, to come into the EU, they will have to recognise that an EU with 25 or 26 members cannot be the same as it is today,
In that process, we also need to examine the financing of the Union. That will involve difficult issues. Over the next few years, countries such as the Irish Republic, which are now net recipients from the European Union, will have to face the fact that, partly because of their own economic growth and partly because poorer countries will come into the Union, they will cease to be net recipients from Community funds.
Other countries will face similar problems on regional aid policy. It is important that we all recognise that some of the wealthier countries will have to make a contribution for enlargement to succeed. Part of what we need will come from common agricultural policy reform, which is so necessary. But that will not provide it all, and we shall have to face the fact that enlargement, which in political and security terms—and even in economic terms, in the long run—will be of great benefit to us, will have a short-term cost.
I was pleased with the statement a few weeks ago by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which for the first time showed us the possibility of having a Government who said that in principle this country should be part of the European single currency.
In his important document, in which he set out the five economic conditions that must be satisfied to comply with the requirements of the single currency, the Chancellor also made it clear that in the meantime we would work positively to achieve greater co-ordination in ECOFIN among Finance Ministers within the European Union.
I believe that that development, too—building on the work in the Amsterdam treaty —will be of great benefit to us in the years to come. Clearly, the Government's statement a few weeks ago that there was no constitutional bar to British membership of EMU is of great significance, and most welcome. However, the longer we stay out of EMU, the more likely it is that the consequences will be politically damaging to this country.

In signing the Amsterdam treaty, we have begun to put Britain's relations with the rest of the EU on an even keel. We have begun to repair the damage caused by 18 years of anti-European rhetoric and policies.
Although the Labour Government's positive developments have prepared the ground for a successful British presidency, there are some worrying signs. The meeting of the French, German and Russian Governments in Strasbourg was a sign that we have to be careful to build on our positive relationships, both bilaterally and in a co-ordinated way with groups of other European Union member states.
It is not enough for us to wait for eventual membership of economic and monetary union, because in the meantime staying out of the process might have politically damaging consequences. We need to work at all levels to build relationships with our partners.
We need a strong European Union, both for the future of Europe and on the global stage. The way in which the United States Administration has used the World Trade Organisation to damage the interests of Caribbean banana producers in favour of the large multinationals that produce cheaper bananas in Latin America is cause for great concern. We need to have a strong collective European Union voice for those occasions when America pursues its self-interest, to the detriment of poorer countries.
In international trade negotiations, the European Union must be outward-looking, and consider the future not only of our continent but of many countries elsewhere, including many small island economies that have an historic association with us as part of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Forth: Why does the hon. Gentleman assume that, if the United States, with its size and influence, pursues only its narrow self-interest, at the expense of others, the European Union would not be equally prone to doing exactly the same, with or without us?

Mr. Gapes: There is a big difference between the international relationships of the United States and those of the European Union. African, Caribbean and Pacific countries have historic links with us, and through the Lomé negotiation process, we have always tried to take account of their interests. I believe that Britain and France in particular have a duty, because of international links with their former colonies in Africa and the Caribbean, to look to those wider interests.
There is a tradition, here and in other European Union countries, of contributing much more to international aid than the United States, which spends a far lower percentage of gross domestic product per head on aid than many European countries, including the Nordic countries, the Dutch and Britain. It is important for Europe to work collectively, because only in our collective strength can we act as a counterweight to American power. I refer not to military power but to economic weight and the political influence that goes with it.
The common foreign and security policy is one of the most important parts of the Amsterdam treaty. I was one of those who, in the previous Parliament, despite being strongly identified with being in favour of the European ideal, had strong reservations about some of the ideas emanating from France in particular about the role of the Western European Union in relation to the European Union.


I am very pleased that the Amsterdam treaty does not in essence go much further in that matter than the original Maastricht treaty. We are saying that there may be development of a common defence policy, but not of European Union common defence. The emphasis is still firmly on NATO, and I believe that that is right for European security and in relation to enlargement. There is no way, in my opinion, in which we could have an easy enlargement of the European Union to include countries of the former Warsaw pact if we mixed up defence in the process.
We have witnessed the controversies about NATO enlargement and the signals that the idea sends to the Russians. It would not be in our interests, and would cause great difficulties for those countries with a tradition of neutrality, such as Austria, Ireland, Finland and Sweden. Therefore, the outcome of the treaty is sensible.
The Governments of the European Union have to some extent recognised in the treaty the concern that we were discussing institutional arrangements but not connecting with the general public. More needs to be done on that. Some countries will hold referendums to ratify the treaty, and it is important that all countries endorse it as quickly as possible, so that we can tackle the more important issues of the future financing and enlargement of the European Union. I am confident that the Labour presidency in the first six months of 1998 will set us in a good direction towards that goal.

Mrs. Angela Browning: To echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I am pleased to contribute to the debate as another free spirit in the Conservative party, and to put on record my views and concerns about the treaty.
I begin with these words:
Our vision of Europe is of an alliance of independent nations".
Those are the words of the Labour party manifesto for the general election. It seems to me, from comments by both Opposition and Government Members, that, in considering the ways in which the Bill affects us as a nation state—as it affects our sovereignty—we cannot take the Amsterdam treaty in isolation.
As Conservative Members have said, the danger for the House and the nation is that what may, as an individual treaty or a small piece of legislation, seem innocuous, may develop a pattern over the years that shows us that there are those in the European Union who have a different agenda—some hon. Members who have spoken tonight might well agree with them—from the concept of Europe as an alliance of independent nations.
From now on, we must measure against that background every treaty we sign, and every substantial negotiation in which we engage, because that is how we can decide whether we end up with an alliance or—as is clearly the ambition of many of our European partners —with a country called Europe. That is very different from an alliance of nation states.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, this was the first test of the Government's negotiating skill. The Prime Minister told the House when he announced the outcome of the European Council at Amsterdam:

We … promised to bring a fresh and constructive approach to Europe and to the negotiations."—[0fficial Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 313.]
That bears more careful scrutiny when we consider some of the announcements that have been made, and some of the issues that have been completely neglected.
The Labour party's manifesto flagged up its agenda. It said:
We will seek a thorough overhaul of the Common Fisheries Policy to conserve our fish stocks".
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister told "The World at One":
We certainly have not ruled out holding up 1GC business in order to get the right changes on fishing policy in the British interest".
Labour Members have suggested tonight that the Conservatives were somehow wrong to flag up well before the Amsterdam conference their concerns about quota hopping and the fisheries policy. We considered it high on our agenda. However, even during the election campaign, the Labour party thought that the issue was sufficiently important for the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to refer to it on prime time radio. That all dissipated quickly after 1 May.
I represent a seat in the west country. It is not a coastal seat, but fishing is of importance not only to the people who go out to sea but to the much wider community. Communities in the south-west of England are dependent on the fishing industry. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said that the previous Government had failed to deal with the problem of quota hoppers. This very House introduced the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which sought to give it powers to interpret the fishing rules, as applied by the treaty of accession. The Act sought to ensure that we had something to which the Labour party should give recognition.
Labour Members use the words "fairness" and "justice" a lot. Fairness and justice in British fishing policy is non-existent, as a result of the way in which the common fisheries policy has turned out. That is contrary to what the British Government believed they were negotiating in the treaty of accession.
The European Court of Justice did not find in our favour. It overturned legislation passed by the House to protect our fishing interests in a fair and just way. That was why the previous Government took such a robust stand. They saw the treaty of Amsterdam as an opportunity to correct that injustice, and bring back some fairness for our fishermen. Yet we have heard that fisheries were not even debated at Amsterdam.
The Foreign Secretary did not explain today why the Labour Government ditched their policy. I hope that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will explain why quota hoppers are no longer a matter of importance to the Government.
What were the fishermen expecting? They had every expectation that Amsterdam would resolve the problem of quota hopping. All that the Foreign Secretary came back from Europe with was a piece of paper which simply reiterated the law as we understood it.

Mr. Forth: Peace in our time.

Mrs. Browning: Peace in our time, as my right hon. Friend says. That was the outcome of the Government's negotiations on fishing.


The Spanish were able to take advantage of the Government in the small hours of the morning, when the British seat was unoccupied because people had gone home thinking that Europe kept normal hours. Whatever the reason, the Government were not represented when Gibraltar was discussed. The Spanish must have gone home from the negotiations thinking that they had had a pretty good outing. They got our fish, and now there is a big question mark over our powers to negotiate on and protect Gibraltar.
The measures on fishing and on Gibraltar clearly show that there is more to the treaty of Amsterdam than the large issues to which the Foreign Secretary tried to restrict us in his opening remarks. He admitted that the mix-up over Gibraltar was a misunderstanding.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) gave the House some extremely important news about tapes in the possession of the Dutch presidency. I ask those on the Treasury Bench to ensure that, in the reply to the debate tonight, we hear exactly what action the Government intend to take to apprise the House of the situation, now that the hon. Gentleman has brought it to the Floor of the House.
I have some concern about the views expressed by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) in respect of that part of the treaty which refers to the merging of the European Union and the Western European Union. I have spoken about the agenda that others are following. It may not be the agenda that all of us in the House wish to follow, but it exists. The agenda of some countries is not a pragmatic division between NATO and the EU in defence matters.
The Foreign Secretary admitted to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 4 November:
The ambition of some of the countries at Amsterdam was to absorb the WEU in order to bring European security and defence identity within the EU.
So it is clear that an agenda different from the Amsterdam treaty is running. We should not be cavalier and disregard that.
One of the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst worries many of us. If the policy changes with each treaty and each piece of legislation, the EU could end up absorbing the WEU. I am sure that those who seek that outcome will continue to move towards it step by step. The hon. Member for Ilford, South is smiling. He has a knowing look on his face. I think that he is about to tell me, "You've cracked it. You've got it right. That is what they are up to."

Mr. Gapes: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady: I am about to tell her that she has misunderstood what I said. I said that I was pleased that the Government had succeeded in stopping precisely the development about which she has expressed concern.
If she looks closely at the wording of the Amsterdam treaty, she will find that, in all its essential respects, the part dealing with common foreign and security policy is remarkably similar to that signed by the Conservative Government in 1991, when, under a joint British-Italian initiative, they produced a form of words similar to the wording in the treaty. I quoted those words.
While I accept that there are differences, the hon. Lady should accept that the Labour Government have succeeded with others in ensuring that the Amsterdam treaty does not go the way that she is worried about.

Mrs. Browning: I am not so convinced as the hon. Gentleman obviously is, simply because other aspects of that element of the policy give me cause for concern—not least the incompatibility of those nation states he mentioned, which for a long time have refused to join NATO even though they have been invited to do so. They have sought instead to protect their neutrality. We must ensure that there is no equalisation between EU nations and long-established members of NATO. Some people wish to bring them together, or perhaps even work towards a position in which Europe eventually takes control of its own foreign and defence policy. That gives me cause for concern.
Although I believe that Europe should pay its fair share and be responsible for its own defence policy, and that each nation state should do so, I do not believe that destroying the NATO alliance between America and Europe would be a good move for the peace of the world. It is a dangerous option. We know that some people have an agenda to work towards that outcome.
Labour has accepted more majority voting in the operation of the CFSP—to implement joint actions, common positions and common strategies. I appreciate that a qualified veto is maintained, for important stated reasons of national policy. However, the concept of constructive abstention has been introduced. A country may opt out of a CFSP decision but allow others to go ahead.
That marks another move away from common decision making. Action will still be taken in the name of the European Union, and the treaty proposes:
When abstaining in a vote, any member of the Council may qualify its abstention by making a formal declaration under the present subparagraph. In that case, it shall not be obliged to apply the decision, but shall accept that the decision commits the Union. In the spirit of mutual solidarity, the Member State concerned shall refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision".
That suggests that the EU may prevent a member state from acting in its national interests, if it goes against the view of the majority. That is the salami-slicing tactic: innocuous because the step appears small, but, from successive treaties and documents over the years, we can see that it moves us even further towards that nation called Europe.
I would disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—

Mr. Forth: What? I beg your pardon?

Mrs. Browning: Yes, I am going to disappoint my right hon. Friend, and disagree with him on one small point.
I do not think that the time is right, or that it would be proper, to say that we should come out of Europe; but, as my right hon. Friend rightly identified, Parliament should examine the changes in Europe over the years and in the foreseeable future, and measure those against that statement in the Labour party manifesto. If we find that,


through sleight of hand or small step by small step, we are close to becoming part of that nation called Europe, we should measure it against Labour's own benchmark—
Our vision of Europe is of an alliance of independent nations.
That has to be the key test, and it causes many hon. Members great concern. I say that as someone who was a member of the previous Government, and who was here and voted for the Maastricht treaty—[Interruption.] Hon. Members make a joke of that, but some of us look with great concern at the way in which the pattern has developed and is developing, whoever was or is in government.
I am not saying that whatever was done by the Conservatives was a good thing and whatever was done by other Administrations was a bad thing; I am saying that, if Labour wants its pledge to be taken seriously–1 hope that it is to be taken seriously—the House must call the Government to account on behalf of the people.
The Government are now the people sitting at the negotiating table, and it is by Labour's own benchmark that we must judge what we put our signature to as a nation. We must judge whether we remain a sovereign nation state, or whether we are moving towards that country called Europe. If the latter, the points made this evening by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst bear closer examination and questioning.
Attention has been drawn to the extension of qualified majority voting. Some hon. Members have said that that is a good thing, but, as Conservative Members have asked, what does qualified majority voting mean in practice to Parliament, and to our right to make our own decisions?
As someone who served for three years in the Ministry of Agriculture, where qualified majority voting applied to 95 per cent. of all the decisions taken in Europe, I have had a great deal of first-hand experience of what qualified majority voting means. It means that, as a Minister, I appeared before hon. Members in the Scrutiny Committee and had to explain why a cartel was running in the negotiations.
I hope that this does not sound pompous, because it is not intended that way, but I warn Ministers that, when they sit through many European negotiations—especially those involving departmental Ministers with a year or more of experience in negotiating the fine points of individual pieces of legislation—they will quickly learn that it is all about horse trading, as countries such as the southern European countries come together.
To get a satisfactory outcome requires more than having right on one's side, or having the national interest on one's side—one needs something in the bag to give in exchange. That is why it is appalling that, at Amsterdam, the Government gave so much without getting much back. I hope that the Government will quickly learn that, whether we like it or not, that is the way the game is played over there. It is no good their taking the high moral ground and saying, "Of course we will do what is in the British interest." Ministers must go into every negotiation knowing what they are prepared to concede, and exactly what they intend to win.
I have to admit that it is an excruciating experience to appear, as a Minister, before a Committee of this democratically elected House—with hon. Members on

both sides asking probing questions on the issue involved—and having to tell the Committee how negotiations are going and what we are seeking to gain, while knowing all the time that, if we are out-voted under qualified majority voting, the concerns of the Committee will not matter a fig. We have no power: power has gone from this Parliament, and power is going from this Parliament, because that is how qualified majority voting works in practice.
In the spirit of friendship, I will give a word of advice to Ministers: as time goes by, there will be times when they know that they are unable to win one, and there will be a clear temptation to look for the virtues in the defeat, so as to be able to sell it back home. That is not a good thing. It leaves a nasty taste. Those of us who have had to do it know that there is nothing democratic about it, and it has nothing to do with a sovereign parliament.
When we have to look for the good in something that is not in the national interest, we know that we have already gone too far. In his speech to the Conservative party conference, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right to say that he felt that, in his view, we had probably gone as far as we wanted to go on integration.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I am interested to follow two former Conservative Ministers, one of whom said that Britain should reconsider its membership of the European Union, while the other said that the time was not right, but, by implication, it could well be in the near future. Given that lukewarm adherence to and support for the European Union, it is hardly surprising that we have lacked influence in the councils of Europe over the past 18 years.
I am happy to speak tonight, because we are at an historic and significant turning point in terms of Britain's relationship with Europe. I say that for three reasons: first, in the past two weeks, we have heard the most positive statement about support for economic and monetary union ever heard from a British Government. We want it to succeed and, if it does, we want to be part of it. Secondly, with today's Second Reading debate, the Government are clearly positively endorsing the results of the Amsterdam treaty; and, thirdly, as Britain prepares to take on the presidency of the European Union, it is clear that we want to play a leading and constructive role at the heart of the Union. From those three facts, it is clear that Britain has come in from the cold and we are witnessing the most positive, pro-European stance by a British Government for 20 years. That is to be welcomed.
The Amsterdam treaty is, in large part, good for Europe, and it is a good deal for Britain. Seen in the context of the general election campaign, it puts into sharp relief some of the comments by Conservative candidates who tried to claim that the only person who could be trusted to negotiate for Britain at Amsterdam was the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). It is ironic that, when the Conservative party seeks to attack its political opponents, it focuses on an area—leadership and negotiating skills in Europe—that serves to highlight its own weakness and divisions.
The treaty is to be welcomed, because it is based on the recognition that the European Union will enlarge and that, once it has 21 or nearly 30 member countries, the


idea that it can continue with a decision-making structure that was originally designed for only six countries is unsustainable—we would be dictated to by the nation that wanted to proceed at the slowest pace, and constantly prey to the threat of blackmail.
That is why I welcome the extension of qualified majority voting encapsulated within the treaty. Why should one country on its own be able to block moves towards combating fraud or opening up European decision-making procedures, to make them more transparent?

Mr. Laurence Robertson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is simple. At the 1975 referendum, when two out of three people endorsed our continued membership of the European Community, the booklet, "Britain's new deal in Europe", which was issued by the Labour Government, specifically guaranteed that, if a British Minister objected to any legislation within Europe, that would be the end of the legislation. If the Government are to take us down a different road, they should at least have the courtesy to revisit the British electorate.

Mr. Rammell: Why, then, did not the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, take a similar route when she signed up to the Single European Act 1985? Clearly, we are dealing with a very different Conservative party today from the one in the 1980s.
Qualified majority voting will help us on the issues that I highlighted. It would be foolish to pretend that we would always win every argument in Europe, but I am certain that the pros will outweigh the cons. That is life. Whether it is in the workplace, business, government or politics, one sometimes wins and one sometimes loses. Sometimes one must negotiate and trade to proceed on the matters that are more important than others. That is how one makes progress in life, and it is how we shall make progress in Europe.
The treaty enshrines the concept of subsidiarity more clearly than ever before. After Amsterdam, Community action will be justified only when more can be achieved together than alone, but also when action cannot be achieved by a member state acting alone. That is not federalism; it retains sovereignty where it can be effective and pools it where significantly more can be achieved together than alone.
The treaty also improves the scrutiny process, so that national Parliaments and the people they represent can better understand and influence what the European Union does. I welcome the protocol setting out the six-week delay between the tabling of proposed legislation and its being placed on the Council agenda for decision. I also welcome the fact that Council decisions will now be published.
I hope that Britain will use its European Union presidency to take a lead and change the way in which the House scrutinises European legislation and makes decisions. Although improvements have been made, we need faster depositing of European documents in Parliament. We also need to extend the practice of Ministers appearing before Select Committees in advance of Council of Ministers meetings, and, in some cases, giving written reports on their return. The system should also be reformed so that pillars 2 and 3 come under the

scrutiny process. Furthermore, if votes at Council meetings are to be made public, the overall proceedings should be made public and televised. In that respect, I agree with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies).
All those moves are designed to open up Europe and to open up the decision-making process. They will be widely welcomed, because the reason why people are sometimes suspicious and fearful of Europe is not that they are intrinsically anti-European but that they simply do not understand what is happening and how decisions are made. Post-Amsterdam, the solution to that problem is in our hands.
I welcome the fact that the treaty makes it clear that the European Union, post-Amsterdam, is not just a financial or business union; it is a people's union. The priority given to job creation within the treaty is long overdue. The co-ordination of employment strategies, the dissemination of best job-creating practices and the small incentive programmes that go with that are to be welcomed. That should not be simply a fig leaf, but this country should give practical support, through our Government and in the Councils of Europe, to that job-creating process.
Flexibility within the labour market will be part of the solution, but not the whole solution. Growth is already returning across the European Union, yet it is not matched by rising employment. Employment flexibility without higher employment levels is not sustainable in the long run and will not be supported by people in this country and elsewhere.
I am pleased that the treaty addresses the quality of employment as well as the number of jobs. I am delighted and proud that this Government have at long last signed the European social chapter. Arguments against the social chapter have always been exaggerated, and our arguments in its favour should not simply be defensive. In a global economy, the opportunity for unscrupulous exploitation of working people should be resisted, and we should do everything possible, through the social chapter and other mechanisms, to create minimum employment standards and fairness.
On the down side, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and others have said, a significant concern is the treaty's failure fully to face up to the need for institutional reform before enlargement. The Commission cannot continue to grow whenever a new nation applies for membership. The weighting of Council votes to represent population size more effectively must be addressed. As the Foreign Secretary said, it is absurd and unsustainable that, under the current rules—certainly under qualified majority voting— countries that represent a majority of the European population could not mount enough votes to block a proposal.
If Europe is to enlarge, that cannot be allowed to continue. While I recognise the negotiating constraints in that respect, I urge the Government to make the problem a high priority for urgent and early resolution, otherwise that factor will be used by those who oppose enlargement to block enlargement unfairly and unnecessarily.
I also welcome other measures in the treaty, such as the fact that our veto on the key issues of changes to the treaty, the budget, foreign and security policy, taxation and social security has been maintained. I say loudly and clearly to the Euro-sceptic siren voices that


persistently and misleadingly claim that, after Amsterdam, the European Union will take taxation policies out of our hands: nothing in the treaty sustains that argument.
I shall now deal with some of the attacks on the treaty by Conservative Members. First, the shadow Foreign Secretary attacked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for his supposed lack of diplomacy and for offending officials. That was certainly amusing, but given his stewardship of the Prison Service and his relationship with some of its officials, those comments lacked credibility, to say the least.
Although I disagreed with the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who said that it was not simply a question of what happened in Amsterdam but that one needed to judge the whole train and flow of summits, treaties and decision making within Europe, I could respect the manner in which he put forward the argument. It was in stark contrast to the comments of some Conservative Members, both today and previously, who talk apocalyptically about the future of the nation state. That serves neither our debate nor the public debate, which, as we move towards a debate on the single currency, will be absolutely necessary to get to the heart of the issue, so that people are properly informed about what is at stake.
I was interested to hear the concern expressed about the penalties that can be used against nations involved in serious and persistent violations of human rights. As a democratically elected politician, I should be appalled to conceive of circumstances in which all 14 other member states of the EU believed Britain to be involved in serious and persistent violations of human rights, and we did not recognise that fact.
The Conservative approach to that scenario almost seems to be that we should be able to behave in whatever way we wish. That is neither helpful nor constructive. The new rules on their own may not have made a difference, but if their existence in the future and the pressure that they would bring to bear made it less likely, for example, that trade unions would be banned at GCHQ, or that section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 would be imposed, that should be welcomed.
We have heard from the shadow Foreign Secretary and others their concern about the extension of qualified majority voting. Before the debate, I looked through copies of Hansard from around the time of the Single European Act 1985. That represented a significant advance in QMV. I was intrigued to discover that in the six months following that treaty, not once in Prime Minister's questions was the issue of QMV raised. That is a strong indication that the argument against QMV is a cloak for the arguments of Euro-scepticism. It shows that the present Conservative party is very different from the one that existed in the 1980s and earlier.
The Opposition say that they will vote against the Bill. No reasonable person, having listened to the debate, read the treaty and considered what is at stake, would vote against the treaty. Had the present Opposition been re-elected at the general election, they would have brought back from Amsterdam broadly the same deal as we brought back. Their tactics were aptly summed up by the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for

Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Asked recently about his attitude to the prospect of the Conservative party voting against the Amsterdam treaty, he said:
I don't think anybody would take us seriously.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right. No reasonable person would take Conservative Members seriously, having seen their tactics in the debate. It is not what they would have done, were they still in government. The treaty is good for Britain and good for Europe, and should be supported.

Sir Richard Body: I thought I heard the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) say that no reasonable person could oppose the treaty. If that is so, perhaps he would agree that no reasonable person would speak of a European Community—still less of Europe—unless the institutions being established in its name were trying sincerely to embrace the whole of Europe.
The hon. Gentleman would agree that Europe consists of some 40 states. It is my dream that the European Community should one day be able to embrace them all, but surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that the treaty will not do that. We should judge this treaty or any other concerning the European Community according to whether it will make it easier or harder to enlarge the Community, so that it can truly speak of Europe and unite all Europe.
The vision began a long time ago, and at that time I shared the vision and supported the European Community in the hope that it would bring the countries of western Europe together so that there should never be another war. Surely the task now should be to bring east and western Europe together, so that we can be a truly united continent, and not suffer the consequences that might follow if any kind of cold war should re-emerge.
When we debated—as we did at great length—the Maastricht treaty, we heard much about the principle of subsidiarity. Those of us who were a little sceptical about it were told to wait and see. We were assured that everything would be all right, and that we would be able to claw back many of the powers that had gone to Brussels. We were even assured that about 25 per cent. of the Community law would be repealed or could be amended.
I stand to be corrected, but I do not think that in the past few years any of the Community law has been repealed or amended as a result of the Maastricht treaty. It has been a disappointment to us. Some of us hoped that, when negotiations took place on the Amsterdam treaty, we could put teeth into the principle of subsidiarity. Surely it is self-evident that there can be no hope of a true European Community unless the principle of subsidiarity is made to work.
Instead of the principle being made to work at Amsterdam, we have a protocol, and paragraph 2 invokes the doctrine of acquis communautaire, which, as we all know, means that competence once given to Brussels cannot be taken away from Brussels. It means that all the powers that we handed over at Maastricht, in addition to all those that we handed over in the original treaty of Rome, and now further powers in the treaty of Amsterdam, cannot come back.


I ask the hon. Member for Harlow to consider the effect that that will have on the countries of eastern Europe that sincerely wish to join the European Community. It will not make it easier for them; it will make it much more difficult. I beg the hon. Gentleman to look again at the Maastricht treaty and see how far it goes and the extent to which it could impinge on the policies that so many eastern European countries are trying to pursue. He will see that those cannot be reconciled.
The protocol is bad enough, but declaration 43 contains some sort of definition of subsidiarity.

Mr. Casale: Does the hon. Gentleman know of a single country in eastern Europe that is opposed to the Amsterdam treaty?

Sir Richard Body: I doubt whether the Governments of those countries have got round to reading the treaty, but when they do, I have no doubt—if it is not presumptuous to say so—that they will agree with what I said. We shall see.
Declaration 43 gives a definition of subsidiarity. It states that member states will be responsible for administering Community law. That is a kind of subsidiarity, but not the kind that we argued about in the Maastricht debates, which we thought meant that individual countries could do those things that they are best able to do.
Let me give an example: fishing, which was discussed at Amsterdam. If anyone believes that the fishermen on the east coast of England and Scotland who go out to fish in the North sea are not capable of agreeing to a policy laid down by our own Government, as was the case in the past, to preserve the fish stocks, the fishermen in my constituency could explain that, if the present common fisheries policy goes on, they have few prospects of being able to earn a livelihood in a few years.
I was glad that the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats and who has fishermen in his constituency, went so far as to say that he agrees with all European Community legislation. That includes all the regulations that constitute the common fisheries policy—I hope that the fishermen in his constituency will appreciate that view. The next time the hon. and learned Gentleman meets those fishermen, he will no doubt explain what an excellent idea the common fisheries policy is.
The declaration superimposed on the protocol is not only a denial of the principle of subsidiarity that we hoped to see, but strikes at the federal principle. Federalists will agree that we cannot have a federal system without meaningful subsidiarity. The Amsterdam treaty has resulted in a move towards a unitary state. That is much more dangerous than a federal system, and I think that we should be alert to that movement. Unless a subsequent treaty enshrines the principle of subsidiarity, makes it a working principle and puts some force behind it, there can be no hope of achieving the kind of European Community that Conservative Members wish to see: a Community that embraces many more countries in Europe and truly speaks for Europe.

Mr. Roger Casale: On Monday, I had the pleasure of addressing the House in my maiden speech as a Londoner, and today I make no apologies for speaking as both a British patriot and a European. I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who referred in one breath to "Europe" and, in the next, to "over there". I do not wish to give geography lessons in the House, but I must point out that, although Europe is over there, it is over here also. We are part of Europe, and I am happy to identify myself with Europe and with the European continent.
My point is that those three identities—being a Londoner, a Briton and a European—are not incompatible, but complement each other. That reflects today's reality: we are citizens of our locality, of our region, our country and of Europe as a whole. That reality is also reflected in the Amsterdam treaty itself.
British interests—those of the British people and of Britain as a whole—are protected by the treaty. The end of the opt-out on social policy secures the interests of British working people by guaranteeing them basic minimum rights and freedoms at their place of work. As a condition of access to the wider European market, the treaty also sets in motion a process by which those freedoms and rights can be enhanced progressively. As it does so, in partnership not only with our European neighbours at a national level but through the process of a social dialogue between employers' federations and trade unions, we can be sure that social progress will not be bought at the cost of our competitiveness—indeed, our competitiveness will be enhanced. That is why I believe Commissioner Leon Brittan who, in an article in The Daily Telegraph today, said:
I therefore consider that the social chapter no longer poses the serious threat"—
implicitly to jobs—
that it once did.
Through the social dialogue, Britain is anchored to a rolling democratic debate about the future of Europe's economy and society. That debate will explore what kind of Europe we want to live in: a Europe of low-value, low-paid, low-skilled jobs or a Europe that develops the resourcefulness and potential of its people to the full.
Anchoring it in the Amsterdam treaty means that the social dialogue will be extended to atypical workers—part-time and temporary workers—who will also feel the benefit of those rights and freedoms. That will improve the quality of life of thousands of people in my constituency, especially many of those who have young families and who are in temporary or part-time work. They will benefit from the social dialogue and from the right to parental leave that is enshrined in the social chapter. Those are some of the first fruits of Britain's accession to the social chapter.
Those Conservative Members who believe that what is in the interests of British working people automatically cannot be in the interests of Britain as a whole should ask themselves whether they are failing in their representative function in some way. Perhaps they should reflect on the results of the 1 May election, which demonstrate that point quite well.

Mr. Keith Simpson: I do not wish to be rude to the hon. Gentleman or to use unparliamentary


language. However, when we narrow it down to factual cases, there is a degree of claptrap in his comments—particularly those concerning the social chapter.
Firstly, many constituencies, particularly my constituency of Mid-Norfolk, include dozens of very small businesses: those employing fewer than five people. The imposition of bureaucracy across the board from national Governments—I admit that that occurs—and from European legislation will mean ultimately that many companies will have to employ fewer people or go bankrupt. There is much generalisation about this issue, but we are talking about an imposition on dozens of small firms who must fight to retain employment. I am sorry that, when we get down to specifics rather than broad generalisations, the hon. Gentleman is in error.
Secondly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I think that "firstly" will do.

Mr. Casale: I share the hon. Gentleman's desire to see debate being conducted politely, and I assure him that "claptrap" is not a term that I would use. Numerous studies have highlighted the benefits of social dialogue. They have identified it as a means of providing the important rights which I have described—including security for working people—and as a route to higher productivity through good relations in the workplace.
I welcome the emphasis on jobs and employment in the Amsterdam treaty. The Government are committed to creating employment for young people—and there is a high level of commitment to that goal in my constituency also. It seems right and proper to establish mechanisms and a framework that enable us to work with our European partners to increase employment in Europe.
The Amsterdam treaty reaffirms that the European Union must create jobs for the peoples of Europe. It also reaffirms the priority of employment creation which was set at the Essen summit in 1994. It anchors that commitment to employment in a new employment chapter and to a rolling debate in the Council of Europe. The jobs summit to be held this month will take that process further forward.
It is in the interests of the British people to build a people's Europe and, to that extent, I welcome the Amsterdam treaty's emphasis on openness and transparency. I welcome also the increased accountability of European bureaucrats and of decisions taken by qualified majority voting in the Council which is reflected in the increased powers given to the European Parliament in the area of co-decision making. I refer again to the comments of Commissioner Brittan, who, in his article this morning, said that this extension of co-decision making was the right way to go.
I welcome the renewed emphasis on European citizenship and remind the House that, as a result of the single market and the freedom of movement that it allows, a very large number of European nationals live in Britain today. I welcome the fact that they will be able to participate fully as citizens in the local elections and in the London referendum next May. When talking about European citizenship, it is important to emphasise that, although the treaty states that European citizenship is

important and that it should complement national citizenship, perhaps more can be done to enforce the rights of European citizens, in particular with regard to voting in local and European elections. Perhaps it would be wise for the Government to see whether there is some possibility of a national campaign to make those rights more widely known to the large community of European nationals in this country, so that those rights can be exercised to the full.
Sir Leon Brittan recognises that Europe needs to be outward-looking. It needs to be a major player on the world stage—an objective which we must all keep in mind at the present time. That objective was taken forward by the Amsterdam treaty, while setting a benchmark for standards and values that must be shared by the countries of eastern and central Europe that are seeking to join the European Union at a later date. The treaty emphasises once again the important continuing role that the European Union plays in ensuring stability and international peace.
In many ways—culturally, historically and geographically—despite the comments of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, we are part of Europe.

Mrs. Browning: I represent a Devon seat. It is not uncommon for those of us who live close to the English channel to refer to the other side as "over there".

Mr. Casale: It is also not uncommon for many people to complain about the people living over there, and then in the summertime to jump on a ferry at Plymouth and go off to France or other places in Europe to enjoy their holidays.
We must recognise that we are part of Europe, that we must work with Europe constructively, and the Amsterdam treaty—I congratulate and applaud the Government on the way in which they negotiated it—is a vital part of that process.
It is time that we sent a positive signal from this place to our European partners—one that says that we want to work together to construct a strong and stable Europe. a Europe fit for the peoples of Europe with their proud and diverse traditions, a Europe based on shared values, decent standards in the workplace, a Europe actively working to create jobs.
We have to negotiate hard in Europe, and the Government have shown that they will not fail in that respect. However, to negotiate, we have to speak the same language as those with whom we are negotiating. As a Londoner and a Brit, I say to our Italian colleagues, "Facciamo l'Europa insieme"—let us construct Europe together. To our German counterparts, I say, "Wir machen mit"—we want to work with you. I applaud the substantial achievements of the new Government in securing British interests in the Amsterdam treaty. I commend the treaty to the House.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. Like other hon. Members, I have detected a difference in the tone of the speeches being made today. Those of us who still bear the scars of the passage of the Maastricht treaty realise that, although we have heard some pretty sceptical comments from hon. Opposition Members, they cannot summon up


the same passion against the Amsterdam treaty. That perhaps explains why many hon. Members have argued tonight that the Amsterdam treaty is a fairly modest step on the European road.
Two former Ministers have argued passionately against the Amsterdam treaty, saying that it is another incremental approach on the road to greater European Union, but they sat in a Government who passed the Maastricht treaty. We can value their speeches, but bearing in mind that Maastricht took us further down the road to European integration than Amsterdam ever could, how could they have sat in that Government with a quiet conscience?
I shall go further: those of us who have followed our European debates will have recognised that Maastricht was a significant milestone on the road to greater European Union. I fully supported that approach. We had many vigorous debates in the House about it.
It is good to remind ourselves that Maastricht happened at a particular time in European history: at the end of the cold war and when the Berlin wall came down. We recognised that the European Union, as it became, needed to consider some of the political implications of greater European co-operation—an issue that Europe had largely forgotten since the catastrophic failure to come together in the 1950s. A draft of a common European defence policy came before the treaty of Rome. We all understand why it was such a catastrophic failure.
After the cold war, after the opening of new relationships in Europe, it was right that the European Community considered what that new partnership should be. Maastricht was a first attempt to look at some of the political implications, with the creation of the two pillars—foreign affairs and defence, and home affairs and justice.
Some of us argued, even during the Maastricht debates, that the creation of those pillars would set up bodies that would be difficult to organise. The common foreign and defence policy had no permanent secretariat, so when Ministers from each member state met to discuss foreign policy, the meetings would often have no coherence and no focus, and a subsequent meeting would often go over the same ground as the previous one.
One of the issues that brought home to me the failure of the intergovernmental approach was our experience during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. We can argue why Europe failed to deal properly with that conflict, but because of a lack of a common approach on foreign policy, individual member states recognised parts of the former Yugoslavia unilaterally. Germany recognised some states. The United Kingdom and France disagreed with that and later considered other forms of recognition.
While Europe was standing idly by, watching the conflict develop, the awful phrase ethnic cleansing entered the dictionary and our consciousness. The failure of the European Union to deal with that conflict properly is a stain on our collective conscience. Europe failed the people of the former Yugoslavia because we had no collective, coherent approach.
Although I disagree with many of the points that have been made tonight by hon. Members who will oppose the treaty—I do not believe that we should be looking for a common defence policy in the traditional sense—there are areas in which we can co-operate. It was a mistake not to take at Amsterdam that little step further in terms of the

Petersburg tasks in the European Union. I believe that it would have been perfectly possible, within the treaty, to accept the European tasks as the only basis on which we should have European co-operation under the collective NATO umbrella. In my view, the experience of the former Yugoslavia is a lesson that we failed to learn in Amsterdam.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how, if there had been some form of common foreign policy, we would, in practical terms, have squared the very different but heartfelt approaches of the German Government and our Government?

Mr. Jones: The real problem was that there was no concerted European action at the outset. The message driven home to the conflicting parties in the former Yugoslavia was that Europe could take no concerted action. The problem then was that conflict spilled from region to region in the former Yugoslavia because those involved knew that there would be no concerted European action against them.
I believe that it was a mistake for the Germans to recognise one part of the former Yugoslavia so quickly. That, too, gave them the feeling that there would be no European intervention. 1 believe that it is necessary for us, on occasion, to come together to deal with conflict on our own borders. I also believe that it is very important for us to recognise that the people of Europe are now demanding greater democracy, greater openness and greater accountability in the institutions of the European Union.
We must recognise that elements of the Maastricht treaty went ahead of public opinion in Europe. We needed to take stock in Amsterdam; the problem with the Amsterdam treaty is that it failed to tackle the fundamental issue—the fact that, while we have democratic institutions in the European Union, there is a failure to give it democratic accountability and legitimacy.
The difficulty is that, although Members of Parliament and people elsewhere argue that power is being transferred to unelected bureaucrats and unaccountable bankers in Europe, people using what amount to the same argument say that we should not give more powers to the European Parliament. They cannot have it both ways. If we believe in democracy and accountability, the European Parliament is the vehicle to deliver that—in part.
We should welcome the fact that the European Parliament is given more powers of co-decision. We are streamlining the legislative process there and making it easier for decisions to be reached between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. I consider that a worthwhile measure in the Amsterdam treaty.
I also believe that the argument about qualified majority voting is being used politically by the opponents of further European integration. I understand the frustration of Ministers who must go to the European Union to argue the case—points are being argued in a different way in the House—but, in international negotiations, it is always a question of a trade-off. It is a question of reaching alliances with other people. It is not always a case of sticking to a veto, of standing isolated and thinking that that will confer benefits; we must always consider ways of reaching an accommodation with those with whom we are negotiating.


I live on the island of Anglesey, which is very close to the Republic of Ireland. I know the way in which the people of the Republic have negotiated their way into the European Union—to their immense benefit. When I look today at the gross domestic product per head of people in Southern Ireland and that of people in west Wales, I know who has had the best deal out of the European Union and the negotiations during the past 20 years or so. It certainly is not the people of west Wales: it is the people of Ireland, who have negotiated considerable benefits for themselves.
My final point is very important. At any rate, it is important for me—representing Plaid Cymru in the debate—to mention subsidiarity. I listened carefully to what Conservative Members said about the need for subsidiarity to be meaningful. I could sympathise more with that line of argument if they accepted subsidiarity in its true European sense, which is that there are different levels of decision-making for different purposes. There is, of course, the European Union level; there is the level of the member state; and there is the level of the regions and nations of Europe.
I recognise that this Government have broken with that traditional Conservative view of subsidiarity and recognised that subsidiarity must drive decisions below the level of the member state. I very much welcome the fact that the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament will be a living embodiment of subsidiarity in the new Europe. I also recognise the importance of the regional dimension in the European Union. That is why I am pleased that the Committee of the Regions is to be given more responsibility under the treaty—although, obviously, I would have preferred it to have more powers.
Amsterdam represented a very small step along the European road. Some benefits will accrue. I do not think that the treaty went far enough, especially in opening up and reforming the institutions; but I will vote in favour of it tonight because I think that it should be recognised that, without this movement along the road, enlargement cannot happen. Certainly the treaty does not pave the way for enlargement to be completed, but I think that it opens an important door.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As with all the past debates on treaties such as this, it is interesting to note—or would be, if we were allowed to look—that the Public Gallery is largely empty and the Press Gallery totally empty.
Let me say—particularly to the new Labour Member who has just spoken, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale)—that I hope that it will be borne in mind that all these treaties have gone through with the same assurances and the same optimism on the part of those on the Front Bench. The one thing that encourages Conservative Members is seeing the large range of new, talented, able and patriotic Conservative Members who have just arrived in the House, and who, I think, will for the first time win a new and stimulating battle for democracy and patriotism.
Let me say this to those who have doubts about the optimism expressed by the Government. I wish that they would look through the assurances that were given about

all the earlier treaties. I well remember the treaty of Rome, many years ago: sadly, I had to resign from Mr. Heath's Government, weakening it amazingly by so doing. We were told at that time that all that the treaty achieved was free trade and friendship. There was no question of taking away our liberty, no question of taking away our freedom, no question of its costing us—and, at least if we sat around the table like sensible and adult people, we would be able to change some of the small problems that Europe had, such as the common agricultural policy. We were told to be positive and optimistic, as the Foreign Secretary is always telling us to be; but, in fact, the arrangement turned out to be something wholly different.
Then we had the Single European Act. Again, we were told that the Act was not like the treaty of Rome at all. It was accepted at that time that the treaty of Rome had been a big thing, but a former Prime Minister, who I think is now in the House of Lords—a delightful lady—assured me in her own office that I should not worry about the majority voting powers, which she said could be used only for free trade. I remember her pointing at me—as she often did—and saying, "Now, Teddy, you are in favour of free trade." I said, "Yes." She said, "I am in favour of free trade, and the only thing that the majority voting powers do is facilitate free trade in Europe." That did not entirely prove to be the case, because the Single European Act constituted a massive transfer of power.
Then we had the Maastricht treaty. I am afraid that some of our older colleagues, who are not here tonight, voted for it—through a misunderstanding, no doubt. The plain fact is that we now know that the Maastricht treaty was a substantial treaty, although we were told that it was not. At that time, a Cabinet Minister kindly explained it to me in the Tea Room. He said, "Teddy, there are good things and bad things in the Maastricht treaty," and added that the good things applied to us whereas, because of the determination and courage of the then Prime Minister, we were exempt from the bad things. Sadly, it did not work out that way.
I caution the Minister, who is obviously optimistic and patriotic at the same time. I ask him please to remember that the same things have been said about all the treaties. We are always told that there is nothing much in them: "There are some nice things, so for goodness' sake let's be positive and constructive."
The Minister is obviously a person of ability and will be around for a long time. He should realise that every Prime Minister has started in the same way. They say, "Unlike my predecessor, I will be positive. I will sit round the table and co-operate with our European friends and will get the bad things changed." After they find out that that does not work, they become Euro-sceptic. I do not want to bash the Government, but I am scared that we are going through the same process again. Every time we have a new Prime Minister, we give another load of power and responsibility to Europe, and we all suffer as a consequence.
We were told that the treaty of Rome was vital for the improvement of Britain's trade. With the help of the staff in the Library, who are more truthful than party politicians tend to be, I obtained detailed figures on what has happened since we began signing these treaties. Has our trade with Europe greatly improved? The official figures may horrify some new Members, although most of them will be aware of them already. The deficit in our trade with Europe since we joined that organisation has been


more than £100 billion. Before we joined the EEC, we often had a positive balance of trade, but since we have joined we have had the horrendous loss of more than £100 billion.
We were told that the contributions were being sorted out; that we were to get big repayments; that things would be better. I asked the Library for the official figures. They may shock people with a number of children. We have had to pay into Europe £1,500 each. I happen to be a normal person with a delightful wife and three children, so for us the figure is £7,500. We have handed that money to Europe, and some of it has come back largely to be used for silly things such as the destruction of food. More money is wasted, while we pour a great deal of cash into Europe.
We also have the common agricultural policy. Although I would never question anyone's integrity, I sometimes worry when Ministers—inadvertently, I am sure—give figures for what the CAP is costing expressed in ecu when the pound is weak and in pounds when the pound is strong.

Mr. MacShane: It will be the euro soon.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should not laugh. I am sure that many poor people in his constituency need help from the Government, whether Tory or Labour. What do they think about the fact that, because of the mad Euro-policies that have been adopted this year, £1,200 million has been spent on growing high-class tobacco in Greece, which has then been dumped on the third world or destroyed. That is an awful lot of money. With £1,200 million I could do an awful lot for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others. The arrogant way in which he deals with these matters, smiling and laughing at stories of spending, is shameful democracy. I would say the same to any Conservative Member. It is not funny. We should all be ashamed of the fact that hundreds of millions of pounds are wasted on the destruction of food simply to maintain high prices.
We should be careful about spreading more power under the treaties. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary would accept that the Amsterdam treaty contains less than the Commission sought. The difficulty that Governments face every time is that many proposals are made and we battle hard to get some of them removed, so there are fewer than we started with. In view of the amount of unemployment, misery, waste, extravagance and fraud in Europe, at some stage a United Kingdom Government should say, "Not one more treaty. Not one more addition of power to this ridiculous enterprise". We must simply say no. If the consequence is that other member countries say that they do not want Britain any more, we shall have to put up with it.
The Government have decided to adopt the social chapter. That has been referred to as giving people additional rights. I appeal to hon. Members to think about what will happen if it goes wrong. What will happen if we pass laws that turn out to destroy and not safeguard jobs? What the blazes could we do about it? The answer is nothing. We have seen the death of democracy, because laws have been passed about which we can do nothing. The basic flaw is that, if we hand over powers and they are used in Europe, we cannot undo them.
There is also the employment charter. Given the misery and massive unemployment in almost all the other countries of the European Union, why on earth should we add to our problems by inflicting on this country the policies that they have inflicted on themselves?
Many decisions taken by majority voting will be damaging. The Foreign Secretary referred to just one: it is tiny. Article 13, formerly article 6a, on page 138 of the treaty, worries the Christian Church, employers and many other people. The Foreign Secretary said that it would allow the Council to introduce new policies to combat discrimination based on racial and ethnic origin and disability, and that that was important. He did not complete the article because of the shortage of time. It refers to discrimination based on sex, racial origin, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. What the blazes does "sexual orientation" mean? I do not know, and the Foreign Secretary obviously does not know. The only people who know are the people in the European Court of Justice. Could the European Court of Justice make decisions on this matter?
Christian Action, Research and Education wrote to the Government to express its concern. It appreciated that these powers are new, but it wanted to know what would happen in the meantime, and whether the article could be used for actions in the European Court of Justice. It received a lovely letter from the Foreign Office dated 7 July 1997, saying that, although the writer
would not expect litigation to arise",
one could never rule it out.
We have previously been told that nothing would happen and that no cases would emerge, but we have had some appalling decisions. The Grogan judgment in 1991 had a devastating effect on the Republic of Ireland, and the decision on Cornwall in 1994 concerned someone who had changed sex. If the European Court of Justice wants, as I believe it does, to change the decisions we make in the employment of people in our Church schools, in churches and elsewhere, our law will be thrown out of the window and there will be nothing that we can do about it.
The Government should have tried to do something about the European Court of Justice. Everyone can understand the need for a court to interpret the law, but that is totally different from a court that seems to be concerned only with extending the powers of the European Union and its institutions. It is a political court, although not biased towards one party or another. Its sole objective seems to be to extend the powers of the European Union.
We should have done something about the agricultural policy, which is the biggest protection racket ever invented by man. It creates the most appalling surpluses and the most dreadful expenditure. The agricultural community, which forms a large part of my new constituency, is rather embarrassed about it, because it appreciates that, if we put all the money on a British-made aeroplane and dropped £10 notes at random, people would be much better off. Why could not the Government do something about it, given that new powers are being created?
The previous Government and the new Government have told us repeatedly that reforms are coming, and that there will be cuts in spending. I remember the last cuts and reductions that were coming. We had to give compensation in lieu, and area payments were introduced.


Those payments were enormous and, in two cases, the prices never fell, but increased. It has become the largest protection racket ever invented. Someone must have the courage to face up to it. We know that there is no agreement in Europe to do that, because all our democratic institutions are terrified of the agricultural community. Most hon. Members would rather sweep European business aside, not talk about it and not attend debates, but we have got to do something. We do something when Europe wants either more powers or more cash.
My biggest worry is that, because of the ever-increasing power that we are giving to Europe and because of the Government's new determination on the single currency, people are not thinking through where we are going. There is not the slightest doubt that, in view of this further significant transfer of sovereignty, and if we enter a single market, it will be the effective death of democracy, in this country and in others. What should worry us most is that, around the world, not one artificial federation without democracy has survived. They always break up, usually with violence. In addition, no independent country that I am aware of exists without its own currency or the control of its economy.
We often try to reassure ourselves with slogans. The slogan of the previous Government was that they were opposed to a federal Europe. It was the silliest slogan that I had ever heard, because a federal Europe would have been infinitely stronger, better and more democratic than what we have now. At least there would be some guarantee for member states' powers. We are rapidly going towards a single European state without democracy, which, on the basis of every previous experiment with the harmonisation of currencies, will create unemployment and misery.
Let us consider the gold standard, the poor countries in south-east Asia that have benefited in some way by linking their currencies to the dollar and now find themselves in a terrible mess, and our experience with the exchange rate mechanism, when all the clever people—such as the bankers, the lawyers and the stupid Confederation of British Industry—said that there would be growth and stability. The plain fact is that they were totally wrong.
1 hope, therefore, that the Government will think carefully. To achieve a small move in the right direction, the best action that we can take is to reject this treaty and then, when our friends in Europe say, "What shall we do now?", give them some good suggestions. I hope that the House will remember that every previous treaty has turned out to be much worse than we thought. I hope also that, at some stage, we will have the courage, first, to attend these debates, secondly, to think about Europe and, thirdly, to say no, as we should have done a long time ago.

Mr. David Heath: I am a little disappointed—not by the quality of the speeches, of course, but by the lack of passion, in the debate. I had been led to believe that European issues in the House tended to generate more interest and excitement than has been displayed by hon. Members on both sides of the House so far. I wonder whether Labour Members are taking part in a subtle process of de-escalation on the subject of the Amsterdam treaty.
In the advance billing, and after the Prime Minister's triumphant return from Amsterdam, we were led to believe that this was a triumph for British diplomacy—we had a deal with which the Government were exceptionally pleased, which had fulfilled their wildest dreams, and of which the country should be proud. The contributions from Labour Members so far have given the overwhelming sense that nothing could be further from the truth. They are almost falling over themselves to explain how modest the proposals are—it is the apotheosis of modesty in some ways. I wonder why that should be.
Equally, I hear the comments from the shadow Foreign Secretary and his colleagues. Again, in earlier exchanges on the Amsterdam treaty, we were led to believe that it was of earth-shattering importance, that it would have a disastrous effect on Britain and would lead to the end of the British state as we know it, and that crazed Belgians would be running in our streets, unfettered by British law and order; yet this evening we have not heard those blood-chilling tales from Conservative Members. We have heard nothing about the referendum, which was promised as a necessary part of the process. The shadow Foreign Secretary is normally good at chilling the blood. Why has he not performed in that way this evening?
We have had the spectacle of Conservative Members saying what was good about the Amsterdam treaty and how much they agreed with so many of its provisions, working themselves up to what could be their only conclusion—that they support the Bill—but, when they got to their last sentence, remembering that it included the social chapter and saying that they would vote against it. It has not been an entirely convincing performance.
The reality is that this is an ordinary treaty, with modest consequences. It moves us slightly in a direction in which many hon. Members would wish us to move. It was a largely workmanlike performance by the Government in Amsterdam, until perhaps about 3 o'clock in the morning, when it seems to have fallen apart a little. Perhaps the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will shed yet more light on how that happened. Perhaps even an apology to the House may be forthcoming, I do not know. On the whole, however, this is a modest Bill, with modest intentions, modestly achieved—a Bill that we can modestly support.
The tragedy is what is not there. As a result of the negotiations, the new agenda for Europe that some of us would argue now needs to be put in place has not been pursued. That agenda would take us towards a genuine democratisation of Europe, genuine transparency and genuine accountability for Europe. The agenda would enable those countries seeking accession to have some chance of success, because they cannot accede without major reforms to the CAP and to structural policies.
The fact that that process has not even begun means that further intergovernmental conferences and treaties are ahead. That process cannot start soon enough. The common fisheries policy has been mentioned. I think that it is fairly well known that Liberal Democrats believe that it must be not just reformed, but replaced with a more acceptable alternative.
There is an agenda that talks about a recognition of cultural diversity throughout Europe, about genuine subsidiarity and about the elimination of duplication and


waste, and that gets rid of some of the nonsense within the EU and its institutions. None of that agenda has been addressed by the Amsterdam process.
If I say those things, I run the risk of what happened to me last week, when we were debating the test ban treaty. After I had said how much I agreed with the Government and with the Bill, and after I had congratulated him on bringing the matter before the House so promptly, the Minister of State said that I had been churlish. I did not feel that I had been churlish. I do not know how much one has to congratulate the Government before one is not accused of being churlish.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The hon. Gentleman has to join them.

Mr. Heath: Perhaps that is so, but even that may not be enough.
Let us therefore talk about some of the positive aspects of the Bill and the treaty that have not yet been addressed. There is a commitment to environmental objectives, which no one has yet mentioned. To have got that into the European framework is welcome, and I congratulate the negotiators. There is the commitment to remove discrimination against people with disabilities. I understand that that was largely a British initiative. That being the case, I congratulate Ministers on having achieved that welcome recognition. It raises the question: what happens next, and how that measure will improve the lives of people with disabilities. How will it be incorporated into British policy, and how do we see the next step forward? It must be accepted, however, that welcome steps have been taken.
Some specific items need to be considered as we move towards consideration of the Bill in Committee, and thereafter during its later stages. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) talked about co-operation on security and policing. I speak with some interest in the subject, because I used to be a member of the standing committee of the national criminal intelligence service. It was an area that needed some co-operation if there were to be an effective fight against international crime, including stopping drug peddling across international frontiers and dealing with international fraud. There had to be a level of co-operation, and Europol provides us with an appropriate apparatus.
The measures in the treaty that will establish a better method of co-operation are welcome, but there is suspicion that the improvement in police co-operation will not be equalled by a new series of safeguards against abuse. I questioned the Foreign Secretary carefully on this issue, and it is still not clear to me that, when Europol officers are acting in support of national police forces, and within the territory of the United Kingdom in a supporting role, they are subject to any of the legal constraints that one would expect to be in place.
It is not clear to me also where the judicial control of the actions of Europol officers will be tested when it comes to liberty and proportionality. Why is that not a matter for the European Court of Justice? I did not hear a satisfactory reply to that question. Why is Britain not yet a signatory to the protocol on Europol?
It has been suggested outside the United Kingdom—I have heard it repeated—that Europol officers may have some immunity. I was told in answer to my questions

that such immunity would be resisted by the Government. I hope that that is so. It would be improper for police officers engaged to Europol to have any immunity when dealing with matters of justice on United Kingdom territory. It is an area of concern, because there is a lack of clarity.
It may be said that police officers engaged to Europol cannot act in operational roles. Much depends, of course, on the definition of "operational". Such officers will be active in providing information, and in co-ordinating roles. They will be active in ways that could put British subjects at risk following the adverse consequences of their actions.
The new protocol on subsidiarity is a welcome addition to the acquis but—it is a big "but"—it remains to be seen how effective the protocol will be when implemented. It remains to be seen also whether there is any significance to be attached to the protocol when we move beyond the interface between the European Union as an entity and national Governments.
I believe that the Government espouse the principle—it is something that I should like to hear—that protocols should extend beyond the nation state, to regional and local levels, so that we have proper subsidiarity, thereby ensuring that matters are always dealt with at the lowest appropriate level unless there are overwhelming reasons for them to be taken at a higher level. That is the genuine meaning of subsidiarity, and one that is not often applied within the European Union or within Britain. It is a principle to which my colleagues and I subscribe, and one that we would wish to see made much more effective.
Oblique reference has been made to strengthening the powers of the Court of Auditors. It would surely be a welcome process. I imagine that the entire House feels that fraud within the Community should be reduced. It would be extraordinary if anyone in this place took a different view. The mechanisms must be provided, however, if that is to happen. I am worried because there is still a disconnection between actions taken by the Court of Auditors and national audit officers within member states. There is a connection that should be much more explicit, so that there is an audit trail that takes us from the origination of the sums involved to the proper destination.
At present, there is no such trail. Instead, there is a reliance on rather uneven audit arrangements between member states. I know that the issue is not easily negotiable within a summit, and will not find its way easily into a treaty. The Minister will probably say, "Look at what we have, which is much better than what we had before." That is true, but that does not stop us aspiring to a better and more complete system.
I agree with those who say that the Maastricht treaty was effectively the end of a process, and that the Amsterdam treaty is possibly the start of a new one. That remains to be seen. The days of the top-down elitist view of a Europe that decides what will happen and presents it as a fait accompli before the people of Europe is at an end.
People throughout the countries of Europe are becoming more questioning, and holding their Governments to account to a greater extent. When the people do not like what they hear, they are throwing out the proposals, and that is only right. We must reflect that attitude in the House and argue in support of it within the institutions of Europe.


We must argue for greater accountability, more transparency and more democracy. That will lead to the informed consent of the peoples of Europe, and it must be achieved before we see further moves in whatever direction. That which the European project has lacked so far is honesty about where we are, where we are going and where we expect to end up.
I hope that the Amsterdam treaty will represent a tiny step in the right direction. If that is what it proves to be, there is not the slightest reason why any Member of this place should not vote for the Bill, in the hope of a better system of government throughout the European Union in future years.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I apologise for arriving in the Chamber somewhat late. I apologise also for not taking up the remarks of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I think that the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm must be much diminished by the qualifications that he imposed on his endorsement of the treaty. He told us that it would have modest consequences and that it is largely workmanlike—I do not know which parts cannot be placed in that category. He told us also that we can modestly support it. The hon. Gentleman could have added that it is a modestly attended debate.
The Liberal Democrat party would accept whatever comes from Europe with gibbering gratitude, because that is its position. Europe for the Liberal Democrats is a religion rather than a matter of national interest or economic well-being. I am reminded of Lord Randolph Churchill's attack on Mr. Gladstone. There was a huge crowd of Liberal supporters watching the great statesman chop down trees on his estate at Hawarden. Those present watched him fell the trees in a frenzy of exertion. They were all given a chip of wood by the great man himself before they were led away. Lord Randolph said, "Here they come with major problems, but what about the Balkans? Chips. What about the economic situation? Chips. What about all the other problems? Chips." The Liberal party now has chips for Amsterdam. Presumably the Liberal party is grateful for the treaty, as the 19th-century Liberals were grateful for what they received.
The treaty is a curious document—all dressed up in a formal document, integrated with the previous treaties, but with nothing to say. It is an amazing document, putting me in two minds on what to say about it. It does things that I do not like, such as advancing federalism just a little bit along the road and fiddling various points. Some of those fiddles and fudges—especially those made late at night—deal with matters that should have been debated. Conversely, the treaty does not have much in it, and what it does contain is petty stuff.
The main indictment of the treaty is that it turns a quick blind eye to every problem. We have major problems with the common agricultural policy, and with what will happen with enlargement. We have major problems also with monetary union and with how to make any monetary union sensible. We shall have to consider in the convergence process some rational factors such as employment and growth. The treaty turns a blind eye to such matters.
So what does one do in considering the treaty? Does one consider the slight federal advance that the treaty provides, or the problems that it leaves unsolved? One must merely say that it is a pathetic treaty, which shows that the federal tide—which has concerned many hon. Members, and certainly me—is turning. That tide reached its height at Amsterdam, but the federalists cannot push it much further because they cannot reach agreement on any of the points that Amsterdam was supposed to deal with. The treaty treads water, being neither a new impetus to federalism nor, as we were told, the 3,000-mile or 5,000-mile service for the Maastricht treaty.
The treaty and its pathetic achievement makes it clear that there are increasing difficulties in reaching agreement and that forward movement has stalled. Currently the only dynamic is an old man in a hurry, which is a description not of Gladstone—the serried ranks of the Liberal Democrat party will be glad to hear—but of Chancellor Kohl.
Essentially, we are now waiting not for Godot but for the euro—which is the only game in town and the only way in which to progress a federal union. With the euro, federalists are trying to build a federal union from the top down. As they cannot get the consent of electorates in referendums or the consent of Governments—because Governments never agree; if they did, and one built something by Government agreement, one would build a camel—to build a federal union, they will build it by the back door. We shall agree on monetary union, and institutions to manage monetary union will follow. Institutions of a nation will follow.
The process of building a federal union is the opposite of what every other nation has done. The process will be disastrous, because it will use the currency and exchange rates as weapons of nation building. The process takes economic instruments and uses them as political instruments to build Europe, thus distorting the instruments' real purpose and function. That is, however, all that the federalists can do, because it is the only way forward. We are waiting to see whether they can move down that road, but I do not think that they can. The results will be messy, and possibly disastrous. Meanwhile, as we wait for the euro, everything else must tread water.
The Amsterdam treaty does not do very much. It does, however, shift various functions from the intergovernmental pillar to the central pillar of the Maastricht treaty. Justice and home affairs policy, for example, will move to the main pillar, and the Maastricht treaty's defence and security content will be extended by tying in the European Union and the Western European Union. In July—for some reason that I cannot understand—the WEU accepted that subordination.
In those senses, the Amsterdam treaty deepens the Union just a little bit—effectively establishing a European Foreign Office and diluting the importance of the Western European Union. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, it also strengthens Europol—which is a type of Euro-FBI. An Elliot Ness character will probably arrive, tracking down fraud in the common agricultural policy. He will be serialised in some European drama, subsidised by the Commission and put on our screens. He could probably be called Elliot Mess if he was dealing with the CAP. The logical outcome must be "Europol versus the cows", offering all sorts of exciting prospects.


The treaty does not do much. One aspect that I do not like at all is that it allows states to merge specified functions—allowing a type of variable geometry. Moreover, any state that joins late must accept the agreements that have been concocted before it enters the new arrangement. I am very suspicious of that facet of the treaty, and I do not know what will come of it. I do not like it—primarily because it will extend the role of qualified majority voting, which we should not have accepted. It is important not to accept qualified majority voting.
The treaty therefore advances the processes of union without consent, which is the dilemma facing Europe. There is a drive among Europe's elite to build an ever closer union, and a total reluctance among electorates to go down that road. A great gulf is opening in Europe, which is apparent in all the polls. The elites decide something, but the electorates, when they are asked to vote on it, say no, thereby laying the elites a stymie.
Amsterdam is a part of the process of bamboozlement and deceit by European elites, and it is a bit of a shame that it was swung on us. Our new Government, of whom I am very proud—I am speaking in a supportive role today, because I do not want them to get into a constant, nagging battle with Europe, as the previous Government did—went to Amsterdam, bright-eyed, bushy-tailed and bicycling, to offer Europe something quite important: our adhesion to the social chapter, mish-mash as it is. We offered something. In return, we got an attempt to fiddle past us the developments that I mentioned.
It would have been sensible and decent of European leaders to welcome our arrival, adhesion and new mood. They should have said, "We shall stop the process of bamboozlement," and not tried to foist upon us the treaty's very minor developments.
Those are, however, minor worries. Today's attempt at debate by the House shows how unimportant the treaty is and the triviality of most of its proposals. It is supposed to be a foundation for future advance—according to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—but it is not a foundation on which anything can be built. It is merely a series of complicated little knots to try to tie up ends left loose at Maastricht. It is a complex mess that is being foisted on electorates because they do not understand it or what is going on. The detail is too trivial for people to pay attention to.
There is not enough in the treaty to frighten me—devout Euro-sceptic and, I hope, defender of the national interest that I am. The treaty does not make me particularly anxious or nervous. It is not worth voting against. The question that I have to resolve in the one hour and 40 minutes that remains is whether there is anything in it worth voting for.

Mr. Tim Collins: We have had an excellent debate. I commend the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on an excellent speech. I endorse much of his analysis.
I have been surprised that we Opposition Members have been lectured by Labour Members and Liberal Democrats about the fact that we do not take Europe in general and the treaty in particular sufficiently seriously when, out of 419 Government Members who could have turned up, there have rarely been as many as a dozen here;

when, out of 46 Liberal Democrats, there has usually been only one here; and when, for the bulk of the debate, there have been more Conservatives present than there are members of either of the other two parties. That shows that we take these matters a little more seriously than they do.
About an hour ago, it was interesting that there was no one on the Government Benches who wished to take part in the debate. One could see urgent consultation going on. The Whips were sent forth to scour the Lobby and empty the Library. Who did they find? They found the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. I know that it has been a bad day for Government Front Benchers; finding him was perhaps not exactly according to plan.
As other Opposition Members have already said, there are some elements of the treaty—relatively minor, but none the less important—which I welcome. I of course welcome any toughening of provisions against fraud and a legal guarantee concerning our borders—although I regret that the Government have not paid tribute to the fact that political agreement on that was secured as long ago as March. I also regret that our legal position is only as a result of an opt-out of a much greater strengthening of the Schengen agreement, and indeed its incorporation in the treaty of Rome.
I welcome the provisions relating to animal welfare. As someone who represents a heavily rural and agricultural constituency, I very much share the hope of many of my constituents that that provision will not be enforced in a way that results in British farmers being expected to meet and enforce higher standards than elsewhere.
One of the central arguments in this debate has been the one advanced by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the Foreign Secretary: if one were pro-European, even pro-membership of the European Union, and certainly if one had ever supported any European treaty in the past, one had to support the Amsterdam treaty. It was said that one could not treat the Amsterdam treaty separately from the way in which one had regarded any other treaty. Much was made of the fact that, if the Conservative party voted against the Bill and the treaty, it would demonstrate that it had finally broken any connection whatever with the EU, had become an anti-European party and was on the road towards withdrawal.
I found all that a little difficult to reconcile with the Labour party's attitude toward ratification of the Maastricht treaty when in opposition. Under its previous leader, who was a convinced and committed pro-European, Labour Members fought tooth and nail to resist ratification of the Maastricht treaty.
I pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats because they, unlike the Labour party, supported the Conservative party's paving motion five years ago almost to the day. Even the Liberal Democrats at various stages during the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill on the Maastricht treaty made it clear that they were in opposition and were trying to maximise difficulty for the Government of the day.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it is all right for the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats to attack, undermine and seek to impede ratification of an EU treaty and not thereby expect to be accused of being anti-European, the same applies to us. As Labour Members and Liberal Democrats said five


years ago, it was their duty to oppose. It is now our duty to oppose. We do not need to be lectured on being anti-European by parties that played the same game when the boot was on the other foot.

Mr. Mitchell: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what happened during debate on the Maastricht treaty was quite correct. It was my experience that the opposition was left to some 30 Conservative Members, who were then on the Government Benches, and about 60 Labour Members on the Opposition Benches. There was collusion between those on the two Front Benches to smuggle a treaty through that neither of them particularly wanted but wanted to pass.

Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman was a Member of the previous Parliament and I was not, but he will know that, in the vote on the paving motion—I repeat that that paving motion, which was necessary to ensure that the process of ratification of the Maastricht treaty could continue, took place five years ago almost to the day—the entire Labour party, including its most Europhile members and those who have lectured us today continually about how, if we oppose the Amsterdam treaty, we must be against membership of the EU, voted against the motion. They knew that, if they had prevailed in that vote, ratification of the Maastricht treaty could not have proceeded.

Mr. Mitchell: indicated assent.

Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman is nodding, so perhaps he will accept that point.
I turn to what is not in the Amsterdam treaty. It was notable that the Foreign Secretary made no reference whatever to fish. The subject was mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and others. What the Foreign Secretary did instead was shake his head vigorously when my right hon. and learned Friend described the exchange of correspondence between the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission as "worthless" and pointed out that that correspondence had no legal status and was therefore not as good as modifying the treaty.
In my capacity as a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture, I asked a question and was told this morning by the most senior official dealing with fisheries in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that that exchange of letters had no legal status whatever. Frankly, the clear statement that we were given in advance of the general election that the Labour party would fight at least as hard as the previous Conservative Government on behalf of British fishermen has been shown to be worthless.
What else is not in the treaty? Notably, there is no exchange for the United Kingdom for us having signed up to the social chapter. The Foreign Secretary was quite explicit about that. He said that it was not a concession for us to sign the social chapter, that it was not something that we were giving to our partners, that it was not giving them an advantage in comparison with the previous position. That is a most extraordinary position to take.
Even if one is persuaded that, on balance, it is better to be party to the social chapter, it was clear that signing it gave our partners some control and influence over

working practices in this country which they did not have before and in return for which any half-decent negotiator would have wanted some form of concession. None was found; none was sought.
A few years ago, I had the great honour of being an adviser to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, the shadow Foreign Secretary, when he was Secretary of State for Employment at the time the social chapter was initially considered as possibly being part of the Maastricht treaty. I cannot believe that the advice that we received from officials then has changed since. That advice was that, if qualified majority voting were granted under the social chapter to what I believe are called "working conditions", anything could go through under that; the European Court and the Commission would hold that virtually anything relating to strikes, industrial relations or any other measures in the social chapter could take place under "working conditions".
I see some Government Members shaking their heads. No doubt they are thinking that there is language in the social chapter that specifically exempts strikes and industrial relations, but the legal advice six or seven years ago from officials in the Department of Employment was that, if we signed the social chapter, QMV on working conditions meant QMV on everything.
The only argument in defence of our signature to the social chapter that the Foreign Secretary could advance was that the Confederation of British Industry was in favour of it in some way. He gave the direct implication that the CBI was in favour of signing the social chapter and that it had gained something because it was now, as part of the COREPER—Committee of Permanent Representatives—process, part of the European social process. But the CBI is against a British signature to the social chapter.
We on the Conservative Benches have regularly been lectured in the past two or three weeks about why we should listen to the CBI on Europe. Again, that rule does not seem to apply to Labour when in government. As I pointed out to the Foreign Secretary—a point that he was not able to answer—as recently as the end of last week, the CBI's business briefing said that the Government's guarantees on works councils did not hold water, because the issue would be dealt with by QMV under the social chapter.

Mrs. Browning: Is my hon. Friend aware that the CBI has described the social chapter as an empty revolver, saying that once the Government had signed up to it, anything could be put in? It would be simply an empty chamber from which they could fire as much as they liked.

Mr. Collins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government should not pretend that their signature on the social chapter has the support of British businesses. It does not. To say otherwise would be to mislead the House—no doubt inadvertently.
We should consider some of the provisions in the Bill. We have already heard a detailed examination of the provisions relating to subsidiarity. The Foreign Secretary laid great stress on those provisions, but it could be argued that the new provisions are worse than the old ones in the Maastricht treaty. The new subsidiarity provisions are


explicitly made subject to the acquis communautaire, which means that the hope that we once held that subsidiarity would allow the repeal of existing European regulations cannot be fulfilled. There will be no change to any powers, directives or measures that have already been passed to Brussels or by Brussels.
What else is in the treaty? We have heard about measures on common foreign and security policy. There are some dangers in the move—albeit limited—towards qualified majority voting on foreign and security policy. It may relate only, as the treaty now says, to the implementation of policy areas in which unanimous agreement had previously been established, but let us think what that might mean. Reaching a unanimous agreement among the Foreign Ministers that Saddam Hussein should be dealt with, that there should be peace in eastern Europe or that stability in certain parts of Africa is desirable would be easy, but the devil is in the detail of how such specific and important objectives should be achieved. We should not accept, even in a limited way, that a nation's foreign policy can be dictated by other nations.
At the beginning of his speech, the Foreign Secretary said that one of the great triumphs of the treaty of Amsterdam was that it had secured two of the great aspects of the nation—borders and defence policy, because of the reference to NATO. Surely foreign policy and decisions on taxes, spending and interest rates are equally important, if not more important, in defining the core of a nation. The treaty makes it possible for the first time for aspects of foreign policy to be decided against the will of a European Union Government. The Government also say that there is no constitutional bar to membership of a single currency. That is bizarre.
The Government are pretending to stand up for the British nation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) pointed out, they have a manifesto pledge to work for a Europe of independent nation states, but step by step, quiver by quiver, they are giving more power to Europe in a way that ultimately can only be incompatible with a system of independent nation states.
I find it disturbing that the Government seem to have no sense of an end point to European integration. It has been put to Conservative Members that, because we have signed up to previous extensions of qualified majority voting, to transfers of sovereignty to Brussels and to greater pooling, we must be in favour of it for ever and a day. That is rather like the unedifying spectacle of the delinquent child down the centuries caught committing an offence in the playground and saying to the teacher, "But please, sir, he did it first." Saying that someone else has done it first is not a sufficient justification for any action. An action has to stand on its own merits.
We accept that there may be a case for some matters being determined by qualified majority voting, but it does not necessarily follow that all matters must be determined in that way. There must be a point at which we stop. The Conservatives have been clear about that. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech to the party conference that he believed that there were limits to European integration and that we were close to those limits. We have stood out in favour of extensions to qualified majority voting in the past, but we are not in favour of any more. That is why we have drawn a line in the sand with the position that we stated in our

manifesto—a position that we shall be pursuing consistently later tonight. We are not in favour of any more extensions of qualified majority voting.
The Government clearly favour some more extensions. They favour those in the treaty of Amsterdam. How many other extensions are they in favour of? We know that the treaty will result in yet another intergovernmental conference in a few years. How much further does the ratchet go? How much more salami slicing will there be? Is there a point at which the Government will say that there might be a few things left that should be reserved for the British Parliament and the British nation—perhaps organising tiddlywinks tournaments?
That is the biggest gap in the Bill and the treaty, because the Government have no end point and no sense that the process of European integration cannot continue indefinitely and unstoppably. They said in their manifesto that their aim was to preserve a Europe of nation states.
The treaty and the Bill are typical of a Government whose representatives on the international stage are the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development, who might be described as the fifth Teletubby and the sixth Spice Girl—perhaps Hairy Tubby and Bolshie Spice. The country is not best represented abroad in that way. The treaty is not what the country needs, and the House should not endorse the Bill.

Mr. Jim Murphy: Contrary to what we have heard from the Conservatives, the treaty is good news for Britain. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his tough negotiation and excellent bicycle riding, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has proved himself a strong negotiator for British interests in his short time in office.
Let us contrast what we are debating with what would have been before us if the Conservatives had won the general election. We would have had a view of the United Kingdom belonging to an age gone by. We would have had policies that were out of touch with the people of the United Kingdom and more in touch with the views of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). Instead. we are discussing a people's agenda. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may sneer at the idea of a people's agenda, but I suspect that the people of the United Kingdom sneered at them on 1 May—perhaps that is one of the reasons for their defeat.
The people's agenda includes being in touch and open. It includes working on the environment, jobs, the economy and anti-discrimination measures. Tonight, we are discussing a series of sensible measures that will improve the United Kingdom and our continent.
On the subject of openness, I will not take issue with some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is now leaving the Chamber. I do not wish to delay his departure. I agree with him that some aspects of European institutions are not perfect and need reform. The treaty will go some way towards that. We need greater access to information and more accountability in the European Union and there is scope for a radical reappraisal. Only through reform can we make the European Union even more popular.
Once we have reformed, I believe that the concerns of my hon. Friend will be met, but so will the more cynical concerns expressed by the Opposition today. They are


false concerns, and we have had false tears and false pronouncements from the Opposition. They fear the idea of reformed, modern and representative European institutions, and that is why their opposition has been so forceful today.
On anti-discrimination measures, the treaty lays down a clear marker that our continent will not tolerate any form of discrimination. Our Government have nobly intervened to ensure protection for those who suffer disabilities, and we have led the way in that important sphere. Other aspects of discrimination are crucial, including discrimination on grounds of age, gender, sexual orientation and race. I am pleased that we are considering the issues of xenophobia and anti-semitism and measures to outlaw and reduce their occurrence throughout Europe.
The treaty also covers details of foreign policy. I did not understand many of the comments made by Opposition Members tonight about foreign policy and co-operation, because the Amsterdam treaty clearly states that NATO will remain the cornerstone of our defence policy. It mentions the involvement of the Western European Union, but it does not foresee—contrary to what we have heard from the Opposition today—a single armed force under a unified European command.
As a newly elected Member of Parliament, I have joined the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Only last week I travelled to discuss strategic defence issues with representatives of NATO. They accepted the need for reform, which is also reflected in the Amsterdam treaty. Europe must have a greater say and involvement in NATO, and its priorities must more clearly represent the concerns, fears and aspirations of Europe. I believe that that is happening. It was brought home to me as I received my briefing from a member of the Dutch Navy, who talked of the need to reform NATO to make it more Euro-centred.
I have already mentioned the idea of a people's Europe; the social chapter—which covers aspects of social justice—is crucial to that. The Amsterdam treaty mentions job creation, but instead of suggesting a pan-European training scheme it envisages job creation through a dynamic and effective European economy and accepts that job creation is not solely or primarily the responsibility of nation states. It accepts that Europe and the United Kingdom will succeed not by becoming a sweatshop, but by competing at an equal level of high skills. Leon Brittan wrote in today's The Daily Telegraph:
the Social Chapter no longer poses a serious threat
to the United Kingdom. For once I agree with him. I wonder whether Opposition Members agree.

Mr. Rammell: Opposition Members have suggested that the British Government should have traded our support for the social chapter for some other gain. Given our vigorous opposition of the previous Government's opt-out on the social chapter and given that we have been lectured about negotiating skills, does my hon. Friend agree that such a stance would have been wholly incredible?

Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments; those are important points. If we had been left with the previous Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary

negotiating on our behalf, the European Union—and the United Kingdom—would have been diminished. We would have been further isolated, with a parochial, backward-looking, short-termist approach and ideology that would have weakened rather than strengthened Europe, because the United Kingdom would not have been centrally involved. It would have weakened this country too, not only in the eyes of other European countries but in those of our own citizens.
There is one other issue involving Europe that is close to my heart, and I do not believe that it has yet been discussed in great detail this evening. I apologise if some hon. Members have alluded to it and I have not heard them—I could not be here for the full debate. The Amsterdam treaty is concerned with sport, of which I am a fervent practitioner and for which I am a keen enthusiast. The talk is of learning from other nations. We may learn from other nations, in terms of football teams, during France 98, but I sincerely hope not.
It is now a quarter to 9, and I believe that there are only 15 or 20 minutes to go in the Scotland v. France football game.

Mr. John Home Robertson: What is the score?

Mr. Murphy: I have no idea what the latest score is, but if someone wishes to offer that information from a sedentary position I shall be glad to receive it.
Some aspects of co-operation in sport are important, such as the idea of training mechanisms, that ensure that young people are imbued from an early age with the concepts of competition, achievement and skills. I believe that Amsterdam could make an important contribution in that respect.
The last major subject on which I shall comment is police and judicial co-operation. I hope that such co-operation will be supported in the House tonight. It is a consensus-building measure. Tough action on terrorism and on trafficking of drugs or arms, and tougher action on offences against children, should be welcomed on both sides of the House.
Finally, I shall comment on some aspects of the Opposition, especially the Conservative party. Again I invite Conservative Members who speak from now on to identify which members of their party they agree with, which members of the shadow Cabinet they are in tune with and whose wing of the party they are on.
The Conservative Member who spoke before me—I apologise for my poor manners in not knowing your constituency—talked about how many Conservative Members were on the Opposition Benches this evening. It would have been more appropriate to talk about how many Conservative parties there are on the Opposition Benches when we talk about Europe.
Although he is not now in attendance, we have already heard the shadow Foreign Secretary who, only 40 hours before the general election, said that Amsterdam would
put our survival as a nation in question".
Then there is the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) who said, rather profoundly in comparison with his usual comments, that if we signed up to Amsterdam we would "abolish our country".


Conservative Members may wish to tell us later whether they agree with those sentiments or wish to disown them.

Mr. Collins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, and perhaps in your comments you can identify your constituency and I can—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.

Mr. Collins: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I must remind the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) that he has been slipping into direct address. He should address all his remarks to the Chair and refer to Opposition Members in the third person.

Mr. Collins: As the hon. Member for Eastwood is on the subject of two parties and talking about who agrees with whom, does he agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is so clearly against a single currency? For that matter, earlier in the debate when the hon. Member for Eastwood was not here, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made it clear that he thought that the Government had made a complete pig's ear of the negotiations on border controls for Gibraltar.

Mr. Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments, and I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for using the incorrect personal pronoun.
In response to the hon. Gentleman, I could refer him to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) who in response to the comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham, said:
Trying to claim that Amsterdam is some great threat to the nation state is not very sustainable at all.
Perhaps Conservative Members can tell me whether they agree with or disown the comments of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) who, in an honourable act, removed himself from the Front Bench and said:
I do hope that we do not take a bull-headed view of the Amsterdam treaty.

Mrs. Browning: Had the hon. Gentleman been in the Chamber earlier, he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) say that he vote with the Opposition tonight.

Mr. Murphy: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, but thus far we have indeed had a bull-headed approach from Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton may vote with the Opposition tonight, but that will be in direct contradiction to his previous pronouncements.
I believe that Amsterdam will advance our nation's interests because it will strengthen both the United Kingdom and the European Union. The United Kingdom will progress through co-operation with our European partners, in a forceful way, for years to come. Contrast that with the agenda that we could have had

if the Conservatives were still in power: we would have had an isolationist, reactionary, jingoistic, little-Englander approach that is absolutely out of touch with the people of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert Walter: I am not sure that I recognise the people's Europe or new Europe about which the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) was talking. I hope that I can convince him that there will be only one Conservative party voting tonight.
I have always regarded myself as absolutely positive on our role in the European Union, and I believe that we should be an active member of it. During the general election campaign, the Referendum party claimed that a vote for me was a vote for Brussels, but I hope that everyone will be disabused of that this evening and will not find it strange that I intend to oppose the Bill and the treaty, for three very good reasons.
First, it is a mean treaty. It does nothing to adjust the institutions to cater for an enlarged European Union. Enlargement is hardly addressed, so we will need another intergovernmental conference and another treaty.
Secondly, the social chapter and employment chapter, of which little mention has been made today, will do nothing to create a single new job in my constituency, and I believe that the resulting loss of competitiveness may well lead to job losses and bankruptcies among small and medium-sized businesses.
Thirdly, the Government's failure to use the unanimity that is required in treaty negotiations to secure any concessions on fishing quotas or the working time directive is a disgrace to whatever negotiating skills they thought they might have.
I call the treaty mean because it is not a striking document and lacks the simple focus of the Single European Act with its creation of the single market. It lacks the purpose of the Maastricht treaty, which dealt with economic and monetary union—whatever one's view of that might be—and set up the pillars of intergovernmental co-operation on foreign affairs, justice and home affairs.
The treaty should have been bold—a blueprint for the enlargement of the Union. It has clearly failed in that. Conservative Members have asked about the changes in qualified majority voting and the powers of the European Parliament. In terms of the great leap forward that the Community is about to take in incorporating the formerly oppressed and destitute nations of eastern Europe, the treaty is merely tinkering. It does not deal with the problem at all.
If we are to incorporate states in central and eastern Europe, we must tackle the complex web of institutional questions, including the voting weights in the Council, the presidency of the Council and the way in which it rotates, and the size of the Commission. As we take in smaller and weaker nations, the whole question of big versus small nations must be tackled. The strains are not only institutional but financial. Neither the Amsterdam treaty nor the Commission's agenda 2000 go any way to tackling the financial problems or genuinely reforming the common agricultural policy. It is in that respect that the treaty is a failure, and the blame for that lies collectively with all the nation states that negotiated at Amsterdam.


However, the blame for incorporation of the social chapter lies firmly with the Government and their adherence to outdated and uncompetitive dogma. There are those who would protest that, at the time of the signing of the Amsterdam treaty, the social chapter was an empty box. It contained just two provisions—one on works councils and one on parental leave. But for how
long?
The United Kingdom has business practices that do not follow the European social model. The United Kingdom is seen on the continent as more competitive and, as a result, a threat. Already, the Commission proposes to make the works council directive, which originally applied to firms with 1,000 employees or more, apply to firms with just 50 employees. That would make a great difference to the implications of the directive.
How many new jobs will be created as a result of the Government's signing the social chapter? Perhaps more pertinent, how many jobs will be destroyed by it and by the associated introduction of a statutory minimum wage?

Mrs. Anne McGuire: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how a level playing field is uncompetitive? If he is into statistical analysis, will he advise us how many people's working lives will be improved by the social chapter?

Mr. Walter: I suggest that those who are unemployed on the continent of Europe would welcome the employment opportunities that exist in Britain as a result of the previous Government's policies. We are talking about a Europe that is able to compete in the modern world.
I regard myself as a good European, but I have no problem in opposing the social chapter and the employment chapter that goes with it because they are bad for Britain and bad for Europe. The treaty is a missed opportunity for Europe and for Britain—the opportunity has been missed to right some of the wrongs of the past, such as the abuse of fishing quotas. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has left the Chamber. We could have righted a wrong that had been imposed on the fishermen of Britain. There is also a wrong in the back-door provisions of the working time directive. The Government failed. It was only to be expected that they would not do anything about the working time directive, but on fishing there was a unique opportunity to do something.
Nothing is achieved in treaty negotiations without unanimity. We could have said, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was prepared to say if he had been at the negotiating table, that if there was no deal on fishing there would be no treaty. The Government failed to do that and, as others have said, they came back with a worthless piece of paper. The Government continue to fail to stand up for Britain.
For my hon. Friends and me, a vote against the Bill tonight is a vote against a Bill that brings in the provisions of a treaty that fails to meet the real challenge of Europe. I am absolutely convinced that the Bill is not good for Europe, or for Britain. The social chapter does not cause harmony and prosperity on the continent, and nor will it do so in Britain. I shall oppose the Bill.

Dr. Rudi Vis: Amsterdam is my home town, so I must be a raving Europhile in the eyes of most people, but I have to admit that, as a Dutch-born person, I have found this a very amusing debate.
I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who has now left the Chamber, saying that what is before us is more or less empty. I heard the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who has also now gone, saying that he will fight every letter, every word and every sentence because it is all wrong. Finally, I heard the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who is trying a new tack for a Conservative, saying that he was a good European but that he could not possibly sign up to anything that Europe might put to him.
It is a pity that he has gone, because I also listened carefully to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). With my Dutch background, I know one or two things that might lift the veil a little between those Conservative Members who are so upset about Europe and my own position, which might not be the position of the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman said two things that I found very interesting and they stand out for me. First, he said the devil is the detail and, secondly, he said that there must be an end point.
If the devil is in the detail, we will never get anywhere and that is a difficulty. That is not Dutch thinking—I am not standing here as a Dutch person—but the Dutch have always said that Europe is a journey. It is not about detail—we sit around a table and negotiate and we have to put ourselves in the driving seat if we want to say anything about the direction in which this country wants Europe to go. As for the contention that there must be an end point, how can one argue in general that it must be good for Britain to go no further with Europe? How can one determine an end point if one cannot determine beforehand whether that end point is or is not good for Britain?
Am I a raving Europhile? Let us check a few points. I believe that something went wrong when this country first considered joining the European Economic Community, which really started not in 1958, but—as most people would accept—in 1951, with the treaty of Paris. It was a shame that Britain did not join at that time. It was the Dutch who argued strongly that Britain should come in, because they foresaw the difficulties arising from an alliance between France and West Germany, as it then was; but the decision was no. The second chance came in 1955 in Messina, but again the answer was no, despite the fact that the Dutch, the Italians and the Belgians wanted this country to join. It was not until 1958 that the treaty was signed to establish the European Economic Community.
Much has been said about the awful aspects of being a member of the European Union and playing a strong role in Europe. I suggest that Conservative Members should go to the Library and ask what was the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom and of France in 1958; they should then compare those figures to the GDP of the UK and France when this country finally joined the EEC—they will see how we have missed the boat. If Conservative Members look at the development of the European Coal and Steel Community, which was


established in 1951, they will see—more than 40 years later—that, if this nation had joined in 1951, it would have suffered far fewer problems.
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East—I listened to his speech on the monitor—talked about the CAP. I am aware that the CAP is not necessarily a good policy now. It was added in 1961—it was written by Mr. Mansholt, a friend of my family—when aspects of the CAP were necessary. The fact that we cannot get rid of it now that we have gluts is a design fault, not a fault of the intention of the CAP. Like many other people, I was very much in favour of the British agricultural policy, but in 1973 we had no chance to insist that the CAP he changed to the British agricultural policy. Had we had such a chance, I would have applauded Mr. Mansholt and argued the case for adopting the British agricultural policy rather than the CAP, which is basically the French agricultural policy. Those matters are easily forgotten by Conservative Members.
A few days before the signing of the Amsterdam treaty, I was in Amsterdam asking Dutch people, on behalf of a television company, what they thought the treaty would do. As I said before—I was able to make one hon. Member leave the Chamber when I did so—the Dutch see Europe as a journey. It is an agenda of thought and of contribution, in which one plays a role. That is a good agenda.
When I look at the Amsterdam treaty, I see part of that journey. Only a few weeks before Amsterdam, the Prime Minister went to Noordwijk. When one looks at those meetings, one sees the phenomenal influence that this country has had on the nature of the debate in Europe. The Prime Minister said in Noordwijk, "You cannot do this and you cannot do that because unemployment in many nations is much higher than it should be." That issue suddenly became a priority, because we regard good working conditions, health and a variety of issues as important. The social chapter is excellent, and the fact that we have not been party to it is a shame on this country.
The UK in the EU is not good enough, and the UK outside or on the periphery of the EU is unthinkable. The UK should be in the middle of the EU, making and defending propositions and fighting for them.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I shall be extremely brief. We have heard a great deal this evening about the increased powers that the European Parliament has received. The treaty undoubtedly gives the European Parliament new powers, but I draw the House's attention to a matter that has not hitherto been drawn to our attention: the shift in the balance of power between the EU institutions.
My perception of the treaty is that the European Court of Justice wins in the shift in the balance of power. We seem to be moving towards an American constitutional model for the European Union—perhaps an extreme form of the US model—where unelected judges can strike down law and make law. The Government may regard that tendency as desirable. It would certainly be in keeping with their decision to incorporate the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom domestic law, but such a constitutional model has not been debated. What strikes me as incredible about the process of constitution-building is that there has been no

discussion, no debate and no constitutional convention about the constitutional model that we want for the European Union.
It is extraordinary that there has been such a significant shift in the balance of power of the European institutions without anyone drawing attention to it or discussing it. I fear that there has deliberately been no discussion of the constitution of the European Union. If there was, people would quickly discover what it was about. They do not want a constitution for it at all. They are strongly opposed to it. That alone is sufficient reason for voting against the Bill.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I have no problem opposing the Bill. My first reason concerns the wider constitutional implications, which have been discussed with great eloquence. I was sent by my constituency to oppose Bills such as this. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) about the drip, drip, drip process. We are constantly told that there will be no more transfer of power from this country to Brussels, but what do we find? More transfer of power from Britain to Brussels.
Secondly, I object to some of the items in the treaty. We must question why a level playing field is desirable. How will that benefit Britain? In terms of inward investment, will foreign countries invest in Britain if we are the same as all the other countries in Europe? What is the point of investing on the edge of Europe if we are the same as the rest of Europe? If the costs of employment in the United Kingdom are the same as in the rest of Europe, countries such as Japan will invest in the centre of Europe, which is Germany, not in this country.
What benefits will the social chapter bring British workers? We must look across the continent of Europe to see the benefits that the social chapter and similar legislation have brought people there. Levels of unemployment across Europe are shameful. I do not want Britain to go down that road.
The treaty has many constitutional implications, some of which have been mentioned tonight. I shall deal with one or two. Article 13 is against any discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. What implications does that have for Church schools, for example? Has that been thought through? Article 13 also rules out discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Although we in the Conservative party are extremely tolerant, what implications does that have for national law in respect of gay marriage, for example? Will such proposals be decided in Brussels rather than in our own Parliament?
I am glad to go into the Lobby tonight with the Conservative party united. For Labour Members to criticise Conservative Members for inconsistency is a bit rich. Labour Members should question how many times they have changed their minds on whether we should be a member of the European Union.

Mr. Howard Flight: I shall confine my remarks to the disastrous employment situation in Europe, which has resulted from the labour and welfare laws associated with the social chapter. If, as the treaty requires, Britain signs up to the social chapter and gives up its opt-out, any laws in relevant areas could be imposed on us.


Over the past 25 years, America has created 30 million new jobs; Europe has lost 20 million. Few people realise that, as the economic cycles have gone round in Europe, unemployment has risen at every trough but unemployment has not fallen at every peak. In Germany, there are now 83 million citizens of whom only 28 million have employment; in the UK, 27 million out of a population of 58 million have employment.
Europe needs drastic reform of its employment and welfare laws. It is not facing up to what is happening in the rest of the world. Competition from the emerging economies and Asia is increasing. Some 20 million people have been priced out of work in the past 20 years. I find it extraordinary that a Government who have pledged to create jobs—we have heard all that pious stuff about jobs for young people—should glibly and callously lock us into the biggest job-destroying measure that Europe has ever seen.
I believe that the Government will rue this day. Unemployment in this country will rise dramatically in the next two years. You will regret the fact that you—the party that is supposed to represent the ordinary working man—will price those people out of work.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that he is addressing the Chair.

Mr. Flight: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Government will live to regret the fact that they have ratted on the very people who voted for them in the last election.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I shall be brief. During my business career, I have travelled widely throughout Europe. I should declare an interest in that I am president of the European Tanning Confederation, I speak a couple of European languages, and I struggle by in English.
I draw the attention of smug, complacent Labour Members to the people of Europe. I have been in the Chamber for most of the evening and I have been astonished by the debate's lack of touch with the real businesses and the real people who are trying to make a living in a sclerotic Europe, struggling under burdens such as the social chapter and over-regulation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) spoke eloquently about the social chapter. I point out that Professor Patrick Minford of Liverpool university has calculated that the social chapter and other burdens could reduce gross domestic product by 20 per cent. They had such a devastating impact on the unemployment figures that the computer could not handle them.
I remind hon. Members that, the last time the people of Britain were consulted, they voted to join a free trade area. They believed that they were joining a club of independent sovereign states that would work together in the interests of free trade. We are here for only a short time: power and sovereignty should rest with the people. Smug Labour Members should reflect upon who has sent them here and to whom they are handing powers.
Qualified majority voting is increasing in 16 areas. The gentleman from Amsterdam, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis), attended today's hearing of European Standing Committee A, at which hon. Members considered landfill. He saw how qualified majority voting will clobber many British businesses whose waste goes to landfill. Incineration—which is proposed by the directive—is not suitable for this country.

Dr. Vis: I must admit that Amsterdam is not my constituency. I represent the constituency of Finchley and Golders Green.

Mr. Paterson: I apologise, but that was the only geographical reference that the hon. Gentleman gave.
In the dying two minutes, I draw Labour Members' attention to the people of Europe. It is horrendous to see powers being taken from them and given to institutions. The people of Europe cannot vote for the removal of those who decide matters that govern their lives. I was in France last year during the by-election at Gardanne, the run-off for which was contested by the Communist party and the National Front.

Mr. MacShane: Who did the hon. Gentleman support?

Mr. Paterson: I am sorry, but I am making a desperately serious point.
The vote is going increasingly to undemocratic parties that support the sovereignty of nations. The Vlaams Blok is a deeply unpleasant group that has taken 25 per cent. of the vote in Antwerp. Herr Haider in Austria is also attracting a substantial vote. I believe—as does everyone on the Opposition Benches—in a club of independent states going further into eastern Europe. We should be bringing in the newly free countries. The Amsterdam treaty does nothing for that; it increases the power of an unelected European elite and does down the people of Europe. The consequences will be serious.

Mr. Gary Streeter: This has been an excellent debate. From right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, we have heard a cross-section of views about the Amsterdam treaty and our relationship with Europe generally. That is how it should be, because there is, across the country, a whole spectrum of views about our relationship with Europe. Those views have been replicated on the Floor of the House today. We are discussing perhaps the most important issue that faces the nation. There have been genuine differences of opinion, and the House is wise to hear them all. Today we have seen the House of Commons at its best.
I even enjoyed some of the speeches by hon. Members on the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) made some important points about cross-border co-operation on crime and drugs. I would make the point that preventing the movement of criminals and drugs across borders is much harder if border controls are given up.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) did the House a great service in probing the Executive very effectively. He revealed the poor performance of our negotiating team at Amsterdam—a point to which I shall return.


The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) thought that the treaty should have gone further. He made some interesting points, but did not understand our objection to the social chapter. He said that just two directives have emerged so far under existing social chapter provisions, but he does not understand that future unwelcome directives can come from Brussels through the social chapter, and that under qualified majority voting there is nothing we can do to block them. That is the point about which we are most concerned.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) spoke knowledgeably on his favourite subject. He introduced a new concept, claiming that Labour's negotiating performance at Amsterdam was a modest, major achievement. He has coined a new phrase, proclaiming this a modest triumph.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) thought that the tide of integration had gone past its high water mark. Some of us are less certain than he is about that.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made a sparkling speech, as usual. He said that the treaty was all dressed up with nothing to say and described it as pathetic. He rightly pointed out that it did not offer any solutions to the real problems facing Europe today. He said that it was a complex mess of a treaty. I could not have put it better myself.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Members for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale), for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones), for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), made telling and interesting speeches to contribute to the full and frank exchange of views that the House has enjoyed today.
The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis)—not Amsterdam, we are told—said that Europe was on a journey, that Europe itself is a journey, but, he says, apparently with no destination, which suggests that we shall be going round in circles.
From my right hon. and hon. Friends we heard some excellent and thought-provoking speeches. My recently liberated right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was at his philosophical best this afternoon. He spoke of the incremental impact of the treaties and questioned the inevitability of future integration. He was right to remind us that the test should always be: what is in the national interest?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) delivered a typically intelligent speech. He pointed out some of the positive aspects of the Amsterdam treaty. We must respect the fact that he speaks for a significant body of people. However, he also powerfully drew our attention to omissions from the treaty, such as the absence of reform of institutions in preparing for enlargement, and to the social chapter, which he described as so harmful to British interests. The discussion between him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on the evolving nature of the nation state was extremely stimulating, and will be well worth a read tomorrow in Hansard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) treated the House to her personal experience as a Minister battling within the corridors of power in Europe. She made some wise and

telling points about the dangers of a developing pattern leading to a country called Europe, and spoke with clarity about the agenda of some member states leading to a common defence policy. The House and the Government would be wise to heed her words carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) spoke of the importance of pursuing a positive agenda for enlargement. He told us how important the member states of central and eastern Europe consider the enlargement of the European Union and their future membership of it. He was right to point out that, at the Amsterdam summit, the Government failed miserably to deal with any of the issues standing in the way of the enlargement of the European Union.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) spoke with his usual passion and detailed knowledge about the cost of the European Union and the dangers of European integration, and made points that I hope the new Government will consider very carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)—without a stitch of a note in his hands—rightly drew attention to Labour's cynicism in the previous Parliament over Maastricht, which now renders it impossible for the party to take the high moral ground on the Amsterdam treaty. He made it clear that the letter from the Commissioner on quota hopping had no legal status whatever. He rightly pointed out that this Labour Government received nothing in return for their concession on the social chapter—demonstrating, once again, the appalling negotiating tactics of the new Front Bench. He expounded on the hollowness of Labour's claim that its wording on subsidiarity is superior to ours—which it patently is not—and emphasised that Labour has no end point on European integration.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) drew attention to the many shortcomings of the treaty. He mentioned the failings of Labour's negotiating team in Amsterdam, and rightly highlighted the negative impact of the social chapter.
We heard four sparkling, if rather brief, speeches from other Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) drew attention to the lack of a proper debate on the constitution of the European institutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) spoke of the importance of considering the benefits of the decisions we make in respect of British workers and British interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) rightly drew attention to the job-destroying character of the social chapter. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) spoke up for British business men, on the basis of a lifetime's experience. It has been a first-class debate, and, as usual, the Conservative party has led the way.
As we listened to the debate, it struck me that there were some dogs that did not bark. Where are all the Labour Euro-sceptics? With the exception of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, we heard nothing from them, although they were very active in the previous Parliament and many of them are still here. I hope that they have not been gagged. We know that socialist Members of the European Parliament have been gagged,


and we now seek an assurance from the Foreign Secretary that his Back Benchers have not been gagged on the vital issue of Europe.
Let me say to the Foreign Secretary that this issue is too important for debate on it to be stifled. It is vital for us to hear from hon. Members in all parts of the House, and to hear all the reflections of attitudes to Europe. Perhaps the new Labour Back Benchers' motto is this: "We are all poodles now." I hope that the Minister can assure me that the disgraceful gagging of socialist Members of the European Parliament has not been replicated here in the Westminster Parliament.
In considering the treaty, the House is entitled to ask itself a question: was this the best deal that Britain could get? The answer is a resounding no. Let us be frank: Labour's negotiating team failed at Amsterdam.
Let me set out some of the reasons why we cannot support the treaty that the team brought back. First, it signed the social chapter. Conservatives have always opposed the social chapter, and we shall continue to do so. To sign the social chapter is to lower our legal defences and to invite into our law, into our marketplace and into our culture rules and regulations that are strangers to us. They impose unnecessary burdens on business, which stifles growth and destroys jobs.
We are concerned not only about what is in the social chapter now, but about the malign rules and regulations that may bear down on us at any time in the future. As many of the social chapter provisions are decided by qualified majority voting, we shall have no veto. There is nothing that the Minister, the House or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with all your power, can do to prevent those new burdens from becoming law in this country.
Unwelcome directives are already on their way. Only last week, the Commission proposed yet more burdens for small and medium-sized businesses in this country, such as works councils for all businesses employing 50 or more people. There are 3.7 million small businesses in this country, many of which are run by self-employed entrepreneurs who have put their homes on the line to back their businesses, who work all hours and who create jobs through their ideas, energy and risk-taking. They do not have the resources to fund personnel departments or compliance officers. How will they be able to find their way through the jungle of new regulations that Brussels will impose?
The Foreign Secretary said that he would ensure that the Commission's proposal is amended. He cannot do that: that is the whole point. There is no guarantee that this country can resist it.
The Government inherited an economy free from the social chapter. They inherited the healthiest economy in living memory. Unemployment is low and falling. We learned today of yet another fall. That has not happened by accident. Our economic success flows from the Conservative Government's supply-side reforms, and from their ability to resist the European social model. Labour gave away all those benefits in Amsterdam at the stroke of a pen.
There are 18 million unemployed people across Europe. In the past 20 years, America has created 36 million new jobs, 31 million of which are in the

private sector. In that time, the whole of the European Union created only 5 million new jobs, of which only 1 million are in the private sector. Again, that is no accident. Flexible labour markets create jobs.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made a telling intervention when he emphasised the importance of flexible labour markets, especially if we join the single currency. That flexibility is why Britain has created more jobs in the past four years under the Conservative Government than all the other major countries of Europe put together. It is why one third of all inward investment into the European Union flows into the United Kingdom. The European social model to which the new Government aspire can result only in more burdens, less flexibility and fewer jobs.
In this new age, the social chapter may sound fair and fashionable. It sounds attractive on the surface. It sounds very new Labour, but like new Labour, it is a fraud. We could pass legislation to make it harder for a company to reduce its work force, to make a company take longer to make decisions and consult more widely, but if reducing the work force is required for the company to survive and if decisions must be taken quickly to match the competition, such legislation will merely jeopardise the jobs of the entire work force. We must never forget that British companies must compete not just in Europe, but globally.
The Conservative Government's refusal to sign up to the social chapter acted as a brake on its development. Now that that brake has been removed by the Amsterdam treaty, new legislation will pile up fast. It is already under way. It comes from Directorate-General V, which is the breeding ground of much interventionist theology, and it has not finished yet. It is too late to man the barricades. Our legal defences are down, so new rules and regulations can enter at will, and the British worker will pay the price.
As long as it contains the social chapter, the Opposition cannot support the Amsterdam treaty. We oppose the results of the sloppy negotiation at Amsterdam. Before they left, Labour Ministers announced to the world's media that they were prepared to make concessions at Amsterdam on QMV, on major extensions of power for the European Parliament and on the social chapter. We heard precious little about what they wanted for Britain in return, and now we know why. They failed on enlargement, on reform of the voting system to give Britain more votes under QMV, and on protection for our fishermen. At Amsterdam, Labour Ministers dutifully made all their concessions, but failed to achieve a single thing in return.
What sort of negotiation is that—to give everything away with one hand and to take nothing back with the other? Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he announced the arrival of the new age of giving? Of course we recognise that Europe is about compromise and give and take—it always has been—but there is a difference between being positive towards Europe and immediately giving in to every demand. At Amsterdam, it was all give and no take.
Just the other day, the Foreign Secretary issued a press release saying that new Labour would give Europe back to the people, but we are entitled to ask: which


people did he have in mind? He has now admitted that, in respect even of the opt-out on border controls that we had negotiated, he blundered. He thought that he had agreed that Britain could opt into those arrangements by QMV, only to discover that the Spanish and others had put through a last-minute amendment.
How did that happen? Had the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office left the meeting early? The hon. Member for Thurrock, who did the House such a service earlier, clearly revealed that the Spanish amendment was not challenged. Why not? Where were the Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister? Had the Prime Minister already started to walk back across the channel? What were they doing? Why did they give the Spanish a free run? The House requires an answer to those questions.
That was a gross dereliction of duty by our negotiating team. It failed and, as a result, our opt-in is governed by unanimity. The Spanish can therefore block it, and they have said that they will do so unless we make concessions on Gibraltar. Among the things that it forgot, Labour forgot to stay until the end of the meeting. Conservative Members cannot condone such sloppy negotiation.
We cannot support Labour's efforts at Amsterdam, because it wasted the opportunity to make progress on enlargement. In its manifesto, Labour said that enlargement was its highest priority, yet it failed to make any progress. Here was an historic opportunity to bring the central and eastern European states in from the cold and to take steps to underpin democracy and capitalism in those former communist countries for the sake of peace, stability and prosperity, but none of the reforms necessary for enlargement was progressed.
Labour has put off until tomorrow what it should have done at Amsterdam. It was more interested in pursuing an agenda of a deeper Europe rather than a wider Europe. It said that enlargement was its priority, but it did not mean it and it did not achieve it—proof, if proof were needed, that Labour still cannot take tough decisions. Through its inexperience and bad judgment, new Labour has missed that historic opportunity, and that, in time, may prove to be its greatest failure.
We cannot support the Amsterdam treaty because it does nothing to help the 18 million people who are unemployed throughout Europe. Of course, it contains some new Labour doublespeak on employment schemes, but when will the Government learn that Government-run schemes do not create jobs? Entrepreneurs and flexible labour markets create jobs. The Amsterdam treaty does nothing to create jobs. It seeks simply to create in Britain the European social model that has failed elsewhere.
Amsterdam paves the way for a new summit on employment—another expensive and ineffective talking shop. How many jobs for British people will the new summit create? Each country has been asked to bring to the summit details of three schemes that have created jobs in that country. May I commend to the Minister as his three schemes flexible labour markets, supply-side reforms and Conservative policies? I wonder which schemes the Minister will bring back from Italy or Belgium to foist on British workers.
All those questions are left unanswered by Amsterdam.
New Labour's efforts in Amsterdam do not deserve our support. Labour has brought back a treaty that is riddled with negotiating errors. It does not spell out a clear way forward for Europe, it incorporates a social chapter that will destroy British jobs and it gives away our interests for nothing in return. It misses an historic opportunity to move forward on enlargement. It is the product of bad judgment and sloppy negotiation. It is the product also of a Government who act without principles and values, and we will oppose it.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): After the general election result and the thumping that the Conservative party received, I thought that we might hear from the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) something slightly more reflective, signalling a little more thinking and a little more pursuit of objectivity. But no, we heard the same old rhetoric and the same old pursuit of narrow political party advantage.
We have had, however, an interesting and varied debate. We heard, predictably, dire warnings from those who see the treaty of Amsterdam as another step toward the end of our national independence. That view is wrong. As many of those who have contributed to the debate have said, the Amsterdam treaty is sensible and good, for Britain and good for Europe. It does not provide massive strides towards greater integration, but it advances the cause of a European Union that works in the interests of its citizens and fully secures the national interests of the United Kingdom.
All that was made possible by the Government's willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue. Since coming to power, we have been determined to pursue a relationship with our European partners that is constructive yet robust in defence of national interests. The Amsterdam treaty shows that that approach can, and will, bear fruit. The public will judge whether this positive, constructive and inclusive approach to Europe works. They will be able to compare it with the sterile, rigid and isolationist approach of the previous Government. We shall continue to be positive in our relations with the European Union.

Dr. Liam Fox: Since 1990, only Britain and Italy have held their share of world trade, while every other European member country has seen a slip. Why should we want to tie ourselves into working practices that have resulted in that?

Mr. Henderson: I had the misfortune to study economics for four years. That experience taught me never to believe statistics. We can select any years of comparison and obtain any result we want. The real truth about the British economy is what the CBI, the Trades Union Congress and the small business community know, which is that, until we get employability higher up the agenda, there will be no permanent success for the United Kingdom.
There have been some predictable contributions to the debate this evening, and I have enjoyed several of them. I enjoyed the contribution of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I am told that he is a philosopher, and on that basis I welcome the right hon.


Gentleman's reincarnation. I am not so sure that we would follow all the arguments that he advanced this evening, and certainly not his conclusions. Nevertheless, it was an interesting speech.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech was only to be topped by that of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who took the concept of opposition to Europe to greater heights, describing the CBI on the way as stupid. I do not think any right hon. Member had any doubt about the hon. Gentleman's vision.
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East was joined later in the debate by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body), who thinks that all l applicants to the European Union agree with him that the Amsterdam treaty should not be ratified. I have been Member for a bit more than 10 years and have heard many bold assertions. That assertion, however, was one of the most challenging that I have heard in that time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is a good friend of mine on many political issues. I did not expect huge support from him in this debate, and I was not disappointed. There were other sound speeches—[Interruption.] There is plenty more to come.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) made a sound speech. He is most knowledgeable about European matters and helped the House with his assessments of public opinion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) made his maiden speech yesterday and an excellent speech today. He focused on the importance of international action against crime, which is one important aspect of the treaty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) spoke of the people's agenda, and of the important changes that must be made in economic and social policy and in citizens' rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) made a distinctive speech and said that Europe was a journey. After the past six months, I cannot but agree with him on that score. Unfortunately, it is the same ticket each time—but it is something that must be done.
There were many other very good speeches by hon. Members from both sides of the House, but time does not permit me to deal with them in more detail.

Mr. Robert Key: The hon. Gentleman has 15 minutes.

Mr. Henderson: Yes, and I should like to reply to some of the major political points made by Opposition Front Benchers.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) claimed that a Conservative Government negotiating the Amsterdam treaty would have resolved the fishing crisis. That was a rich claim coming from a Government who were in

power for 18 years trying to deal with the issue. Now, six months after they lost power, they say that they have the solution to the fishing problem.
The protocol published last spring by the Conservative Government had no support among our European partners. The matter was raised at a meeting in Bonn between Mr. Kinkel, Germany's Minister of Foreign Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and me, but Mr. Kinkel was not even aware that a protocol has been issued. It was pointless to ask whether he had been asked for his support.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Henderson: No, I will not give way now.
The truth is that Opposition Front Benchers know that there was only one way to go if, in 18 years, they could not resolve the fishing issue. They should have taken the course adopted by this Government: to examine and identify the details and basis for Commission action. We have adopted that course, and we will make some progress on the issue. As the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, if people who work in fishing in his constituency—which I know is overwhelmingly a fishing constituency—have formed but one judgment on the Conservative Government of the past 18 years, it is that people in the fishing industry were betrayed. That judgment has been replicated by fishing communities across the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what he will do about the problem? Will he reform the common fisheries policy?

Mr. Henderson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman knew the details of European legislation. If he did, he would know that there will be no opportunity to revise that fishing policy for some years. He is stuck with the policy that was agreed unanimously by those who are now Opposition Front Benchers.
One cannot, however, resolve fishing problems by declaration. One must examine the detail, and make proposals that the fishing industry know will have some effect. The House should not take lessons on fishing policy from the Conservative party.
The important issue of enlargement was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) and for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) and by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). The Government believe that it is a top priority of the future direction of Europe that enlargement of the EU takes place at the earliest possible date. That was the approach that we adopted during the Amsterdam treaty negotiations.
It is true that we would have wanted to have been able to deal with institutional questions in June. One or two other nations at the negotiating table were prepared to do that, but at that time, there was not the necessary support to be able to carry through reforms that would have been acceptable to the House. I assure the House that not dealing with such an issue was not in any way due to the Government's reluctance to face up to it. We shall continue to pursue it—indeed, we are already through


bilateral contact with our European partners. It is one of the issues that will be taken forward from the conclusions which will—we hope—be reached at the Luxembourg summit in December.
It should be borne in mind that it is again rich for Opposition Members to complain that no progress has been made on enlargement issues by the Labour Government—which, incidentally, is not true—when, at the same time, they are saying that they would have vetoed the whole treaty because they could not correct the mess that they had made in the fishing industry over the past 18 years.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I warmly commend the Government's initiative to hold a conference on enlargement in spring next year, keeping all the applicant countries in play. Consistent with the view of a people's Europe, will the Minister consider a parliamentary dimension to that conference?

Mr. Henderson: That is an interesting suggestion. It would have been preferable if my hon. Friend had given me some time to reflect on it. I shall come back to him on that. He must understand, however, that the European conference that we propose should take place in February in Britain is for Heads of State and Foreign Ministers. It would send the wrong signals to our European partners and the nations that wish to accede to the EU if we were to dilute the conference. There is a case for fertilisation of parliamentary ideas, for a coming together. If my hon. Friend has specific proposals on that, I would be happy to examine them.
The real issue concerning the Amsterdam treaty is the complete confusion in the public's mind about the Opposition's position—an Opposition who had 18 years to reflect on European issues. The public do not know where the Opposition stand. One minute they are to have a referendum to decide whether the treaty is acceptable to the British people, and then the Leader of the Opposition goes to the Scottish Conservative party conference and the little line on the referendum in the draft press release is dropped for the speech. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe has lost his argument on a referendum, and the public are confused.
The public are confused about whether the nation state is in question, as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe claims. They are confused about what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said. He said:
If we sign the present draft of the Amsterdam Treaty, we will abolish our country".
I do not know how one abolishes a country.
That view is in complete contrast to that taken by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who says:
Like most European Treaties, it has some good bits and some less good, but overall it's a balanced document. It simply does not involve some fundamental transfer of power to Brussels".
The Conservative party cannot have it both ways. Either the treaty involves a transfer of power or it does not.
I am not surprised at the confusion in the public's mind, considering, as the House will remember, what they were told in the Conservative manifesto on 1 May:
You can be sure with the Conservatives".

What one can be sure about with the Conservatives is that one is sure to be confused, sure that they will be looking at their own political navels and sure that they will put party advantage before the nation's interest. That is what the people of this country are sure about regarding the Conservatives.
Two myths have emanated from the Opposition Front Bench today. One, which the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe was trying to establish, was that the country would have got a better deal if the treaty had been negotiated by the Conservatives. The House knows that that is pure post-electoral fantasy. For six months before we entered into negotiations on 4 May, no progress was made in the intergovernmental conference, because our partner countries had no confidence that the then Government knew what they stood for, could deliver it or were in a position to negotiate.

Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Apart from anything else, I am concerned about his health. I think that he is going to have a seizure in a moment. Will he tell us, without becoming too excited, whether there is any increase in qualified majority voting to which he would object in principle? If so, will he specify it to the House?

Mr. Henderson: If the hon. Gentleman is worried about my health, he is welcome to come with me for 10,000 m around Hyde park tomorrow lunchtime. We can talk about it while we are running.
There are areas in which qualified majority voting is not appropriate. It is not appropriate for foreign policy decisions, by and large. [HON. MEMBERS: "By and large!"] Those on the Conservative Front Bench know what I mean. I shall give them credit for having read the treaty, although perhaps I should not. They know that there is a difference between a strategy and a common action. The main point is a strategy. Even if there is a disagreement on a common action, which is the means of implementing a decision, any nation can raise that at the full Council, effectively providing them with a veto.
Since taking office, the Government have been determined to adopt a constructive but robust approach in Europe, protecting the national interest. The Amsterdam treaty shows that that approach can, and does, deliver results. At Amsterdam, all the United Kingdom's major negotiating priorities were achieved. [HON. MEMBERS: "By and large."] We were able to secure for the first time—not by and large—explicit legal security for our border controls and to protect essential interests on immigration and asylum policies. That was a major achievement.
We have agreed measures to improve police and judicial co-operation in the fight against crime. We have agreed measures that will improve the effectiveness of common foreign and security policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "By and large."] We managed—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having some difficulty hearing the Minister. Could we please conduct the rest of the debate in good order?

Mr. Henderson: We managed for the first time to secure explicit recognition that NATO is the cornerstone of defence for most member states. The previous


Government never achieved that. We supported a new focus on issues that really mattered to the citizens of Europe—an employment charter to put jobs at the top of the European Union's agenda, stronger provisions to protect the environment and measures to combat discrimination on the grounds of gender, race or disability.
We have signed up to the social chapter so that British workers will enjoy the same protection as their European counterparts. We have promoted measures to combat fraud in the Union and to promote transparency. We have achieved a legally binding protocol setting out rules for the application of subsidiarity. We have agreed to—indeed, promoted—the extension of qualified majority voting in limited areas, while maintaining the veto where we said that we would. We have ensured that the European Parliament has an effective role in overseeing the work of the Commission, alongside the Council. We have ensured that the questions of reforming the Commission and re-weighting votes will be settled in advance of the next enlargement of the Union. Taken together, those changes are good for Britain and good for Europe. They mark an appreciable step towards our goal of a European Union that works in the interests of citizens. I commend them to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 392, Noes 162.

Division No. 87]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
(Dunfermline E)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Ainger, Nick
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Allan, Richard
Browne, Desmond


Allen, Graham
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Burden, Richard


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Burgon, Colin


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Burnett, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Burstow, Paul


Ashton, Joe
Butler, Mrs Christine


Atherton, Ms Candy
Byers, Stephen


Atkins, Charlotte
Cable, Dr Vincent


Austin, John
Caborn, Richard


Baker, Norman
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Battle, John
Canavan, Dennis


Bayley, Hugh
Cann, Jamie


Begg, Miss Anne
Casale, Roger


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Caton, Martin


Bennett, Andrew F
Cawsey, Ian


Benton, Joe
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Chaytor, David


Berry, Roger
Chidgey, David


Best, Harold
Chisholm, Malcolm


Betts, Clive
Church, Ms Judith


Blizzard, Bob
Clapham, Michael


Borrow, David
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clark, Dr Lynda


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bradshaw, Ben
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Brake, Tom
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Brand, Dr Peter
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Clelland, David


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon
Clwyd, Ann





Coaker, Vernon
Gunnell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hain, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Coleman, Iain
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Colman, Tony
Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)


Connarty, Michael
Hancock, Mike


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hanson, David


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Cooper, Yvette
Harris, Dr Evan


Corbett, Robin
Harvey, Nick


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Corston, Ms Jean
Healey, John


Cotter, Brian
Heath, David(Somerton & Frome)


Cousins, Jim
Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)


Cox, Tom
Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)


Cranston, Ross
Hepburn, Stephen


Crausby, David
Heppell, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hesford, Stephen


Cummings, John
Hill, Keith


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hinchliffe, David


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hodge, Ms Margaret


(Copeland)
Hoey, Kate


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Home Robertson, John


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna
Hoon, Geoffrey


(Perth)
Hope, Phil


Dafis, Cynog
Hopkins, Kelvin


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Howarth, George(Knowsley N)


Darvill, Keith
Howells, Dr Kim


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Davidson, Ian
Hughes, Ms Beverley(Stretford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Hurst, Alan


Dawson, Hilton
Hutton, John


Dean, Mrs Janet
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Illsley, Eric


Dismore, Andrew
Ingram, Adam


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dowd, Jim
Jamieson, David


Drew, David
Jenkins, Brian


Drown, Ms Julia
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Welwyn Hatfield)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Ennis, Jeff
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Etherington, Bill
Jones, Ms Jennifer


Fearn, Ronnie
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Flynn, Paul
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Follett, Barbara
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Foster, Don (Bath)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Foulkes, George
Keetch, Paul


Fyfe, Maria
Kemp, Fraser


Galbraith, Sam
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Galloway, George
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Gapes, Mike
Kidney, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Kilfoyle, Peter


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Gerrard, Neil
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Kingham, Ms Tess


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Kirkwood, Archy


Godsiff, Roger
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Goggins, Paul
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Laxton, Bob


Gorrie, Donald
Lepper, David


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Leslie, Christopher


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Levitt, Tom


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Grocott, Bruce
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)






Liddell, Mrs Helen
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Linton, Martin
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Livingstone, Ken
Primarolo, Dawn


Livsey, Richard
Purchase, Ken


Llwyd, Elfyn
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lock, David
Quinn, Lawrie


McAllion, John
Radice, Giles


McAvoy, Thomas
Rammell, Bill


McCabe, Steve
Raynsford, Nick


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Macdonald, Calum
Rendel, David


McDonnell, John
Robertson, Rt Hon George


McFall, John
(Hamilton S)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McIsaac, Shona
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Rogers, Allan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


McLeish, Henry
Rooney, Terry


Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McNamara, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


McNulty, Tony
Roy, Frank


MacShane, Denis
Ruane, Chris


Mactaggart, Fiona
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McWilliam, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mallaber, Judy
Salter, Martin


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sanders, Adrian


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Savidge, Malcolm


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martlew, Eric
Shipley, Ms Debra


Maxton, John
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Singh, Marsha


Meale, Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Milburn, Alan
Smith, John(Glamorgan)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Sir Robert(W Ab'd'ns)


Moffatt, Laura
Snape, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Moore, Michael
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Spellar, John


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mountford, Kali
Stewart, David(Inverness E)


Mudie, George
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mullin, Chris
Stoate, Dr Howard


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stott, Roger


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Stringer, Graham


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stunell, Andrew


O'Brien, Mike (N Walks)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Hara, Eddie
Swinney, John


Olner, Bill
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


O'Neill, Martin
(Dewsbury)


Öpik, Lembit
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Matthew(Truro)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Thomas, Gareth R(Harrow W)


Pearson, Ian
Timms, Stephen


Pendry, Tom
Tipping, Paddy


Perham, Ms Linda
Todd, Mark


Pickthall, Colin
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pike, Peter L
Touhig, Don


Plaskitt, James
Trickett, Jon


Pollard, Kerry
Truswell, Paul


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)


Pope, Greg
Turner, Desmond(Kemptown)


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dr George(KW Norfolk)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Tyler, Paul





Vaz, Keith
Willis, Phil


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wills, Michael


Wallace, James
Winnick, David


Walley, Ms Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ward, Ms Claire
Wood, Mike


Watts, David
Worthington, Tony


Webb, Steve
Wray, James


Welsh, Andrew
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wicks, Malcolm
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wigley, Dafydd
Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Rt Hon Alan



(Swansea W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth)




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Green, Damian


Amess, David
Greenway, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Grieve, Dominic


Arbuthnot, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Baldry, Tony
Hammond, Philip


Beggs, Roy
Hawkins, Nick


Bercow, John
Hayes, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heald, Oliver


Blunt, Crispin
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Body, Sir Richard
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Boswell, Tim
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Horam, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Brady, Graham
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brazier, Julian
Hunter, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jackson, Robert(Wantage)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Jenkin, Bernard


Burns, Simon
Johnson Smith,


Butterfill, John
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cash, William
Key, Robert


Chapman, Sir Sydney
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


(Chipping Barnet)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Chope, Christopher
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Clappison, James
Lansley, Andrew


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Leigh, Edward


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Letwin, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


(Rushcliffe)
Lidington, David


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Collins, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Colvin, Michael
Loughton, Tim


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Luff, Peter


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Day, Stephen
Mackay, Andrew


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Duncan, Alan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Duncan Smith, Iain
Madel, Sir David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Magginnis, Ken


Evans, Nigel
Major, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
Malins, Humfrey


Fabricant, Michael
Maples, John


Fallon, Michael
Mates, Michael


Flight, Howard
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
May, Mrs Theresa


Fox, Dr Liam
Moss, Malcolm


Fraser, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Gale, Roger
Norman, Archie


Garnier, Edward
Ottaway, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Page, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Paterson, Owen


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Pickles, Eric


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Prior, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Randall, John


Gray, James
Redwood, Rt Hon John






Robathan, Andrew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Townend, John


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Tredinnick, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Trend, Michael


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Trimble, David


Ruffley, David
Tyrie, Andrew


St Aubyn, Nick
Viggers, Peter


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walter, Robert


Shepherd, Richard
Wardle, Charles


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Waterson, Nigel


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wells, Bowen


Soames, Nicholas
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wilkinson, John


Spring, Richard
Willetts, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilshire, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas(Macclesfield)


Swayne, Desmond
Woodward, Shaun


Syms, Robert
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Mr. James Cran and


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Mr. John Whittingdale

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63(2) (Committal of Bills),

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Doug Henderson.]

Question agreed to.

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

SEA FISHERIES

That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 1924), dated 4th August 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th August, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

TRANSPORT AND WORKS

That the draft Transport and Works (Descriptions of Works Interfering with Navigation) (Amendment) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

Ordered,
That Mr. Bob Blizzard, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Mr. John Horam, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. Tim Loughton, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. Malcolm Savidge, Mr. Jonathan R. Shaw, Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West), Mr. Paul Truswell and Joan Walley be members of the Environmental Audit Committee.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Orders of the Day — Poole Harbour (Bridge)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Robert Syms: It is a great pleasure for me to have my first Adjournment debate on Poole harbour bridge. The subject will not excite the same passion as the Amsterdam treaty, except of course in Poole and Dorset, where the bridge is an important issue and there is great strength of feeling about the project, which forms part of the national roads programme.
It is very important that we get this bridge across Holes bay. The future development of Poole is strongly linked to the project. At the end of the term of office of the previous Government, a competition was held for the design of the bridge, and a design was picked in January. Opinions and morale soared with the prospect that the bridge would be built, but there is now concern about what the future and the national roads review may bring; so today I am presenting the case for the bridge to the Minister. I hope that she will listen to what I have to say, and take a full part in the discussions within the Department to make the case for this important bridge.
Poole is a vibrant town. In 1998, it will celebrate the 750th anniversary of the granting of its first charter to allow it to be independent and trade profitably. It is a successful town built around its natural harbour, which is the largest in Europe. It is strategically located on the south coast. It provides freight and passenger services to France, Spain and the channel islands.
Poole is home to many world-class companies. More than 1 million people visit the borough each year to enjoy the water-based leisure and sports facilities. It has a great deal to offer, but one of its main problems is infrastructure. It has grown tremendously in the past 25 years, and the strains are beginning to show.
There are eight main arguments for the bridge. The first is that the port is a major gateway to Europe. "What role for trunk roads in England Volume 2" acknowledges that the principal purpose of Poole harbour crossing and the A31 Poole link road is to link the port of Poole with the national trunk road network. The purpose of the harbour crossing is to relieve congestion on the approach roads to the port and congestion within the port caused by the frequent opening of the Poole lifting bridge.
Poole harbour commissioners, who run the port, have a turnover of more than £12 million a year. They employ 223 people. If one includes sub-contractors and others, about 500 people make their livelihood from the port. If one takes into account the multiplier effect, the port generates revenue for the town of about £50 million a year. The port is among the 15 busiest in the nation. In the south-west, it is second to Bristol, but it has great potential for improving its trade with Europe.
The port is a significant generator of traffic, with 180,000 heavy goods vehicle movements per annum, and 400,000 car movements. As the port has roll on/roll off ferries, the traffic tends to feed into the road system in short, sharp bursts. One of the most important things for people who arrive at a ferry destination is the ability to get out of the port rapidly. Unfortunately, in Poole that does not always happen. United Kingdom policy is to have our ports open and competitive. The shipping


industry is notoriously price-sensitive, and the continued prosperity of the port depends on its being able to offer a competitive service in terms of quality and price. Poole enjoys many advantages, but it needs the bridge.
Secondly, we need integrated transport and effective links to the ferry port. Public policy is moving towards the concept of integrated transport, and to achieve that it is essential that there is transfer between different forms of transport. The port is rail-connected, and the harbour commissioners would like to increase rail traffic, but we also need good road communications for the port to develop. It is essential that we get improved connections via the bridge across Holes bay, so that traffic can move speedily out and into the port.
Thirdly, a successful port is an environmentally friendly Poole harbour. Poole harbour commissioners run conservation policies to keep the harbour a delightful place that are financed via surplus income generated by the port, and the harbour area has many sites of special scientific interest. The benefits in terms of tourism are great, because the port authorities take good care of the harbour.
The fourth reason is sustainable economic development—that is, development on brown-field and not green-field sites. The previous Government did much towards sustainable development, and I understand that the current Government are continuing that commitment to get more housing and industry built on existing or former sites.
Our ability to continue to build on green fields is diminishing and, where possible, we should regenerate urban areas where there is surplus land. Sustainable development strategy involves balancing the need for development with environmental constraints on the use of land, which means encouraging regeneration of urban land and buildings. Such an approach is reflected in the housing Green Paper, "Where shall we live?", which suggests that up to 60 per cent. of the required dwellings might be sited on brown-field sites.
The fifth reason is the regeneration of Lower Hamworthy, which is the dock area of Poole. Over the years, many of the larger companies that surrounded the port have closed, and there are potentially 50 acres that could be developed in and around the port, but development would require people being able to get in and out relatively rapidly. We are therefore talking not only about a bridge, but about the possibility of a regeneration project involving Lower Hamworthy that could reflect on the entire borough of Poole.
Most regeneration schemes, especially those in docklands or Cardiff docks, involve water—people want to live next to water, and even where water is not present, developers put it in. Poole has a most beautiful environment and a vast amount of water and, if we could get the infrastructure right, the land would be of great value. A new bridge might encourage investment in a range of areas, including housing, leisure and port expansion.
The officers of Poole borough council have put considerable work into determining whether development could be undertaken in Lower Hamworthy. They have already spoken to many landowners, and there might be the prospect—I would not state it more strongly than that—that one could get some private sector contributions from the landowners towards the cost of a bridge. Bridges

are expensive items, and I do not suppose that such contributions would constitute a large proportion of the cost, but I am sure that, if we got close to having a bridge and had the certainty of investment in Lower Hamworthy, contributions would come in.
The sixth reason is an enhanced role for the town centre. Currently, all the traffic coming from the port goes through the town centre, and that causes jams and reduces the quality of life there. If the traffic were to go straight over Holes bay towards the A350, policies for the town centre could be more sensitively implemented—we could do more for cyclists and pedestrians, for example. In addition, there would be some potential for development in the town centre, the quay and Poole old town. The key point is that building the bridge would have knock-on effects in Lower Hamworthy, the quay and the centre of Poole.
Seventhly, the bridge presents a solution to the traffic problems caused by the existing lifting bridge. The bridge dates back to 1927, and, like any mechanical bridge, it needs more maintenance as time goes on: hence it has to be closed more and more frequently.
The A350 primary route to the port of Poole crosses the Poole lifting bridge. It carries more than 18,000 vehicles a day, including 2,000 goods vehicles. There are seven scheduled lifts and, typically, 10 unscheduled lifts a day to allow maritime traffic to pass, largely from Cobbs quay. That causes chaotic conditions on the surrounding road network. Traffic queues in the town centre cascade back, all the roads become jammed up, and people cannot go about their ordinary business. It even affects public transport. Twenty buses an hour go over the bridge, and if it is closed, public transport and the buses are knocked for six.
In the port, traffic may be trapped for half an hour or longer if a bridge lift coincides with a ferry arrival. Delays to port traffic can be even more extreme.

Mr. John Butterfill: I very much support what my hon. Friend says, on two counts. First, I represent the borough of Bournemouth, and the economies and prosperity of Bournemouth and Poole are intimately related, so the project would greatly benefit the borough of Bournemouth, which thoroughly supports what my hon. Friend says. Secondly, I declare an interest, as I live on the quay at Poole and can confirm what my hon. Friend says about the congestion and the damage that the lifting bridge does to the environment of those who live there.

Mr. Syms: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I note that my hon. Friends with Dorset constituencies are sitting all around me. South-east Dorset as an economic unit needs decent infrastructure, and my hon. Friends' support today is much appreciated. I note that I also have the support of one or two hon. Friends who do not come from Dorset, but the New Forest is not terribly far away.
The public and traffic can be held up for hours. Recently, the bridge was closed for three days for essential maintenance. One lady wrote agonisingly to the local newspaper saying that it had taken her an hour and three quarters to go three quarters of a mile. That cannot continue.


A Poole harbour crossing would provide a direct, uninterrupted link between the port and the A350 dual carriageway, and would therefore resolve the specific problems that I have highlighted.

Mr. Robert Walter: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I wish to speak specifically about the A350, which, when it leaves Poole and heads north, linking up with Bristol, the midlands and south Wales, becomes no more than a country lane. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the A350 and the improvement schemes for bypasses are in the Dorset county structure plan as soon as possible?

Mr. Syms: I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem with Dorset is where to start improving the infrastructure. I am starting at Poole bridge because it is of most concern to my constituents. All my hon. Friends will have issues that they need to raise. East Dorset district council contacted my hon. Friend today on that issue, because it has great concerns about the A350.
My eighth point concerns the unique role of Poole harbour and regional trunk road priorities. The key point about the bridge is that it would not only accommodate more traffic but would facilitate urban redevelopment in the Hamworthy island. It would allow the port to expand, yet it would improve the quality of life for people who live in the centre of Poole. It therefore meets the criteria for sustainable development.
It would lead Poole to develop in a much better and more strategic way, hitting two objectives. First, it would allow the port to expand, and would allow the sensible development of mixed use, as well as greater jobs and prosperity. Secondly, it would allow people within the town to have a better quality of life by reducing traffic. In terms of pollution and the volume of traffic that people must put up with, we could facilitate that balancing act, which it is always difficult to achieve with a major scheme.
The bridge is not only a priority but a vision for the people of Poole. If, after the review, they can have a guarantee of when it will be built—even if it is a little way off—they can strategically plan. Poole borough council, the harbour authorities and all the local authorities can sit down and have a thorough look at Hamworthy, the quay and the old town area to see how they can improve and strategically plan the borough. That would be far better than the alternative. If the bridge is not built, there will be gridlock, and people will be opposed to development. We will set residents against those who want to prosper in our port.
I am particularly pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is replying to the debate, because not long ago she was down at the headquarters of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. People there were pleased that, in spite of the change of responsibilities from Opposition spokesman to Government, you still insisted on going ahead with your visit. I feel confident that they mentioned the bridge and traffic in Poole.
When one of the Doorkeepers heard that I had the debate, he said, "I think Glenda is going for the Steve Norris trophy for replying to the most debates." I am not sure whether you have the trophy already, but you are notching up a fair old total. I look forward to your reply, as the matter is of great concern to the people of my constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and to the Minister for allowing me to make a short contribution to the debate.
I endorse my hon. Friend's comments in support of the proposed Poole harbour bridge. My constituency in North Poole offers visitors access to Poole harbour. We would undoubtedly benefit from the improved quality of life in the town if the bridge were built. The proposed replacement crossing would directly relieve the traffic flow, both private and commercial, through the south-western corner of my constituency to the port and the ferries.
I am concerned that, unless road links are developed in conjunction with the crossing, it could well become a bridge to nowhere. In Mid-Dorset we already suffer terrible traffic jams on the roads to the town of Poole. If Poole continues to prosper and grow as a result of the improved access that the new bridge would provide, we could end up with gridlock, as my hon. Friend has already pointed out.
Poole is a major gateway between the continent and the north and west of England, Wales and Ireland. The current port facilities could handle twice the present trade. However, to cope with existing traffic and realise the full potential of the port, existing road links must be dramatically improved. That means that not only the earliest provision of the harbour crossing, but the extension of the A31 link and the upgrading of the A350 north, are essential.
The initial scheme for Poole harbour included the extension of the A31—the existing Dorset way, as it is known—across open country at Canford heath to Wimborne bypass. It would effectively become the Poole bridge link. The scheme must not proceed without it.
Providing Dorset with an enhanced roads network is vital to the economic future of Poole and Dorset. It is also crucial to a better quality of life for my constituents and those who live around the Poole area. It is essential that the Government give the matter sympathetic consideration.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on obtaining the Adjournment debate, and commend him for his generosity in permitting interventions from the hon. Members for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser). As the hon.


Gentleman pointed out, he has the support of other hon. Members from his region, although they have maintained sedentary positions throughout.
I well remember my visit to the constituency of the hon. Member for Poole. It was a great pleasure for me. The site of the proposed bridge was pointed out to me, and many of the difficulties that he described in the House this evening were raised with me on that day.
I appreciate that the matter is particularly important, not only for the hon. Gentleman's local community and constituents, but for all the hon. Members who have spoken tonight, and for those who have not but who are sitting on the Opposition Benches. I well understand their desire for an early decision about the scheme.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have embarked not only on a roads review, but on a fundamental review of transport policy. The Government's main objectives are a strong economy, a sustainable environment and an inclusive society. In his own way, the hon. Gentleman highlighted those issues in his own constituency. He made some telling points about the importance of transport in achieving the Government's aims and the desires of people in his part of the world.
However, the backdrop to our review is a candid recognition that we must have a shift in direction. Revised national road traffic forecasts published last month show that traffic will increase by nearly 40 per cent. over the next 20 years. If current policies are not adjusted, congestion will worsen, the impact on the environment will be more severe, and those who do not have access to private transport will find it even more difficult to get around.
We must develop an integrated transport system that makes the best use of the contribution that each mode can make; which ensures that all options are considered on a basis that is fair, and is seen to be fair; and takes into account from the outset considerations of accessibility, integration, safety, the environment and the economy. Above all, an integrated transport system must be sustainable. One encouraging aspect of what is undoubtedly an ambitious task is the degree of consensus about the need for change.
We cannot achieve that change in isolation. It is a feature of the policy development work that is now under way that we are involving a wide range of external advice and expertise, including local authorities, businesses, transport professionals and users, and trade unions. That is the context for the roads review: examining the role that trunk roads should play in an integrated and sustainable transport policy. Against the background of increased congestion, we have three broad options for roads: first, to make better use of existing infrastructure; secondly, to manage demand; and, thirdly, to provide new infrastructure.
Making best use of existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice. It has been provided at substantial cost, in both financial and environmental terms, and we must make the best use of that investment. Technologies old and new can help us to make better use of our roads network. Several measures can also bring safety benefits, and we will need to ensure that they are given proper priority. However, we must be realistic about the various options that we can deliver.
At a local level, many authorities are seeking to combine those measures by means of transport packages, so that mobility is maintained but any damaging consequences of such mobility are reduced. The Highways Agency's programme of small safety schemes is continuing, but major new construction is under review. Providing new infrastructure is a very difficult option, financially and in terms of the impact that it may have on the environment. Our starting point is that we shall not proceed with major new trunk road construction unless we are satisfied that there is no better alternative. Even then, there will be difficult choices to be made within the limited resources available.
There is no substitute for rigorous case-by-case examination of the options. Volume two of our consultation document, "What role for Trunk Roads?"—to which the hon. Member for Poole referred—sets out, region by region, the perceived traffic problems and details of the roads programme that we inherited from our predecessors.
The existence of a scheme in the inherited programme is seen as prima facie evidence that there is a transport problem. We are seeking from our regional consultations a view on whether these are the most important problems or whether others deserve greater priority. We envisage two outputs from that part of the review: first, a firm, short-term investment programme; and, secondly, a programme of studies to consider the remaining problems from which the medium and long-term investment programme will emerge.
It may help to look at how the consultations have been taken forward in the region in which the Poole harbour crossing scheme is located. The Government office for the south-west held two day-long seminars over the autumn under the umbrella of the integrated transport consultations.
The first, in Bristol on 16 September, addressed the main themes in the consultative document, "Developing an Integrated Transport Policy". The second seminar, in Taunton on 30 October, concentrated on the roads review and sought to establish the views of those in the south west about investment priorities. The views expressed at the seminars will be taken into account, together with the written and other representations that we have received—including those from the hon. Gentleman and the very strong local support for the Poole harbour crossing scheme.
I recognise the importance of the proposed new Poole harbour crossing at Holes bay in terms of the relief that it would provide for the problems associated with the existing lifting bridge. However, we cannot allow a decision on the scheme to be determined by that factor alone. I note that the hon. Gentleman considers that there is a more pressing case for the second harbour crossing ahead of the associated proposal to connect Poole harbour with the existing A31 trunk road via a new trunk road link. Both the new bridge and the link to the A31 must be judged on their relative merits, and in the context of the roads review. Should the new crossing not go ahead, we would need to consider alternatives with the Highways Agency and local authorities.


Developing a forward-looking integrated transport policy that supports a strong economy, contributes to a sustainable environment and helps to create a just and inclusive society is an enormous challenge. Through the work now under way on trunk roads, we wish to achieve a robust short-term programme and a system for planning future investment in the road network—whether measures to make better use of the existing network, means of control, or to provide new infrastructure—which is fair

and is seen to be fair; which allows a proper opportunity for all concerned to make their contribution; and which looks at transport problems squarely in the context of an integrated strategy.
The hon. Gentleman has made a very telling contribution tonight. I can assure him that the proposals that he presented and the concerns that he highlighted will be examined very closely by the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.